OBB Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to subscribe to the Orange Book Blog newsletter. If a new post is added during the day, you'll receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Orange Book Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of Orange Book Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Orange Book Blog is Aaron Barkoff's personal website and it is intended for other attorneys. Orange Book Blog is not edited by McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. ("MHM") or its clients. No part of Orange Book Blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to MHM or its clients. MHM represents many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and therefore Orange Book Blog may occasionally report on news that relates to MHM clients. Orange Book Blog will always strive to be unbiased. All information on Orange Book Blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability. -- © Aaron F. Barkoff 2006-2017

« FTC Roundtable, "Competition Issues Involving Follow-On Biologic Drugs," Washington, November 21 | Main | Sanofi and BMS Prevail Over Apotex in Plavix Appeal »

December 09, 2008


Pacific Reporter

Great post. Thanks for the update. I've been anticipating this decision. Hopefully this will thwart a lot of frivolous Paragraph IV challenges.


Can someone knowledgeable explain the reason why a generic company would make a baseless Paragraph IV challenge? What is the benefit here?

The comments to this entry are closed.