Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sue And Settle: Demonizing The Environmental Citizen Suit, Stephen M. Johnson
Sue And Settle: Demonizing The Environmental Citizen Suit, Stephen M. Johnson
Seattle University Law Review
In the spring of 2013, industry groups and states began a concerted lobbying effort to oppose citizen enforcement of the federal environmental laws. The United States Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists for states created a catch-phrase—“sue and settle”—to demonize citizen enforcement and the federal government’s practice of settling lawsuits it is destined to lose in court. The Chamber alleged that the federal government, by settling lawsuits brought by citizens groups rather than defending them in court, was colluding with those non-governmental organizations and excluding other affected parties to reallocate the agencies’ priorities and obligations. Federal environmental laws establish a central …
Inevitable Imbalance: Why Ftc V. Actavis Was Inadequate To Solve The Reverse Payment Settlement Problem And Proposing A New Amendment To The Hatch-Waxman Act, Rachel A. Lewis
Seattle University Law Review
The law regarding reverse payment settlements is anything but settled. Reverse payment settlements are settlements that occur during a patent infringement litigation in which a pharmaceutical patent holder pays a generic drug producer to not infringe on the pharmaceutical patent. Despite the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., there are still unanswered questions about how the “full rule of reason” analysis will be applied to reverse payment. This Comment argues that despite the outcome in Actavis, the complex regulatory framework of the Hatch–Waxman Act will create repeated conflicts between antitrust law and patent …
Antitrust Issues In The Settlement Of Patent Disputes, Part Iii, Thomas B. Leary
Antitrust Issues In The Settlement Of Patent Disputes, Part Iii, Thomas B. Leary
Seattle University Law Review
Once again, I will address the issue of litigation settlements between companies that hold patents on pharmaceutical products (sometimes "pioneers") and would-be generic entrants ("generics") who challenge the validity of the patent and/or a claim of infringement. This discussion will focus on the Tamoxifen opinion, with passing reference to other decisions. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree on these issues, but I still believe the Commission's approach in Schering was correct.