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 Releases Report on Paragraph IV Litigation Settlements for FY 2010 | Main | District Court Decides Amrix (Cyclobenzaprine) Litigation in Favor of ANDA Filers, Finding Claims of Patents-in-Suit Invalid for Obviousness »

May 10, 2011


patent litigation

Indeed, considering the FTC's staunch opposition, it seems almost inevitable that pay-for-delay patent litigation settlements will eventually go the way of the dinosaur -- the recent denial by the SCOTUS of cert for the Bayer case notwithstanding. Then again, I've been saying that for a while now, but pay-for-delay still has somehow survived.

The comments to this entry are closed.