Valley Drug Company v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the presence of a reverse payment, by itself, does not transform an otherwise lawful settlement into an unlawful one
• concluding that the presence of a reverse payment, by itself, does not transform an otherwise lawful settlement into an unlawful one
• concluding that the presence of a reverse payment, by itself, does not transform an otherwise lawful settlement into an unlawful one
• noting that the appropriate analysis on remand will likely require consideration of the extent to which the Agreement reflects “a reasonable implementation” of the protections afforded by the patent and the relevant law”
• explaining that, at the time of settlement, the patent holder had “the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling anhydrous terazosin hydrochloride until October of 2014, when [the patent] is due to expire”
• explaining that, at the time of settlement, the patent holder had “the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling anhydrous terazosin hydrochloride until October of 2014, when [the patent] is due to expire”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).