Displaying 401 - 420 of 1549
FTC Staff Comment Before the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding the 21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program
FTC Staff Comment to the FDA Department of Health and Human Services on Its Updated Guidance for Industry on the “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Productsâ€
FTC Submits Comment on FDA Guidance Regarding Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products
Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC’s Complaint Challenging Consummated Merger of Companies that Make Microprocessor Prosthetic Knees
FTC Charges Surescripts with Illegal Monopolization of E-Prescription Markets
FTC to Hold Workshop on Certificates of Public Advantage in Healthcare Markets
FTC Approves Final Order Imposing Conditions on Merger of Fresenius Medical Care AG & KGaA and NxStage Medical, Inc.
Fresenius Medical Care and NxStage Medical, In the Matter of
The FTC required healthcare companies Fresenius Medical Care AG & KGaA and NxStage Medical, Inc. to divest all rights and assets related to NxStage’s bloodline tubing set business to B. Braun Medical, Inc. as part of a settlement resolving charges that Fresenius’s proposed $2 billion acquisition of NxStage likely would be anticompetitive. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the proposed merger would harm competition in the U.S. market for bloodline tubing sets that are compatible with hemodialysis machines used in clinics that treat chronic renal failure. Bloodline tubing sets are single-use plastic tube sets used during hemodialysis treatments. Fresenius and NxStage are two of only three significant suppliers of bloodline tubing sets used in open architecture hemodialysis machines in the United States. Fresenius and NxStage together control 82 percent of the market for bloodlines.The settlement requires Fresenius and NxStage to divest to B. Braun all assets and rights to research, develop, manufacture, market, and sell NxStage’s bloodline tubing sets.
FTC Concludes that Impax Entered into Illegal Pay-for-Delay Agreement
FTC Staff Testifies in Favor of Repealing Alaska Laws that Limit Competition in the Health Care Sector
Statement of the Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission to the Alaska Senate Committee on Health & Social Services on Certificate of Need Laws and SB 1
FTC Chairman Releases 2018 Annual Highlights
A Health Check on COPAs: Assessing the Impact of Certificates of Public Advantage in Healthcare Markets
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (FTC v. Actavis)
On 2/2/2009, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court challenging and agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals and two generic drug manufacturers in which Solvay paid for the delayed release of generic equivalents to its own testosterone-replacement drug, AndroGel, typically used in the treatment of men with low testosterone levels due to advanced age, certain cancers, and HIV/AIDS. According to the Commission’s complaint, in an effort to prevent Watson Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceuticals from acquiring patents for their competing testosterone replacement drugs, Solvay paid the companies to delay entry for a nine year period, ending in 2015.
This case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the Northern District of Georgia. The district court dismissed the Commission's complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that anticompetitive effects within the scope of patent protection are per se legal under the antitrust laws.
On 10/4/2012, the FTC filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit, rejecting the scope of the patent test and permitting antitrust review of reverse payment patent settlement agreements.
There are three related administrative proceedings:
Displaying 401 - 420 of 1549