Search
00
GBAF Logo
trophy
Top StoriesInterviewsBusinessFinanceBankingTechnologyInvestingTradingVideosAwardsMagazinesHeadlinesTrends

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest news and updates from our team.

Global Banking and Finance Review

Global Banking & Finance Review

Company

    GBAF Logo
    • About Us
    • Profile
    • Wealth
    • Privacy & Cookie Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising
    • Submit Post
    • Latest News
    • Research Reports
    • Press Release
    • Awards▾
      • About the Awards
      • Awards TimeTable
      • Submit Nominations
      • Testimonials
      • Media Room
      • Award Winners
      • FAQ

    Global Banking & Finance Review® is a leading financial portal and online magazine offering News, Analysis, Opinion, Reviews, Interviews & Videos from the world of Banking, Finance, Business, Trading, Technology, Investing, Brokerage, Foreign Exchange, Tax & Legal, Islamic Finance, Asset & Wealth Management.
    Copyright © 2010-2025 GBAF Publications Ltd - All Rights Reserved.

    ;
    Editorial & Advertiser disclosure

    Global Banking and Finance Review is an online platform offering news, analysis, and opinion on the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the banking and finance industry worldwide. The platform covers a diverse range of topics, including banking, insurance, investment, wealth management, fintech, and regulatory issues. The website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

    Top Stories

    VENABLE VICTORIOUS IN NEXIUM REVERSE PAYMENT CASE

    VENABLE VICTORIOUS IN NEXIUM REVERSE PAYMENT CASE

    Published by Gbaf News

    Posted on December 10, 2014

    Featured image for article about Top Stories

    Venable scored an important victory in Federal District Court in Boston on behalf of its client, Ranbaxy, in the first test of what limits may be placed on reverse payment deals among drugmakers to protect steady streams of revenue on popular drugs.

    The case against AstraZeneca and Venable client, Indian generics maker Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., challenged a 2008 settlement of a patent lawsuit that stalled sales of a cheaper version of Nexium in the U.S. until AstraZeneca’s patents expired last May. The case is the first reverse payment suit to go to trial since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that the Hatch-Waxman Act settlements could be challenged under federal antitrust law.

    The Venable trial team, led by Douglas Baldridge, emphasized the fact that even though the date for generic entry had come and gone, no generic received even tentative approval from the FDA for another similar drug.  He pointed to the fact that the jury clearly agreed with the defendants’ argument dismissing the idea that “but for so-called ‘illegal’ payments by the defendants the plaintiffs could have entered the market at an earlier date.  Clearly that did not occur,” Baldridge said.  “The system worked. The jury understood the facts of the case and were not swayed by wishful thinking on the part of the plaintiffs,” he said, arguing in his closing arguments, “the drug buyer groups were living in a fantasy world during the trial. No company could have produced generic Nexium sooner because none of the generics makers had FDA approval.”

    Ranbaxy had said in an earlier court filing that, “The buyers failed to show they were actually harmed by the deal between the companies, relying instead upon “strained opinions of experts who each proffer a version of what could have or would have happened in a hypothetical world that has no connection to the evidence.”

    The Venable team for the six week trial consisted of partners J. Douglas Baldridge, Lisa Jose Fales, and Danielle R. Foley, associates Vincent Verrocchio, Paul Feinstein, Sarah Choi and Molly Cusson with Marta Markowska and Jeanne Mooney.

    Why waste money on news and opinions when you can access them for free?

    Take advantage of our newsletter subscription and stay informed on the go!

    Subscribe