About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« ToolGen Files Proposed Protective Orders in CRISPR Interferences | Main | FCBA Remote Program on Dispute Resolution Challenges »

April 15, 2021


Another question not asked here is why would attorneys counsel clients to enter into unusual agreements with competitors knowing that the FTC was engaged in a major legal effort attacking them?

Well, Paul, at that time the FTC's position had been universally rejected by the appellate courts. Perhaps makes it more understandable.

Of course, I'm not sure what the remedy is/was; the Opana ER patents had expired or Impax had a license to any surviving ones, and the only unlawful restraint was the $102 million. I suspect disgorgement to the government (how convenient) because Endo was also "guilty" of anticompetitive conduct.

Couldn't Endo's removal of Opana ER from the market have been motivated by concern about abuse of its product by consumers, at a time when the opioid crisis was in full swing (or at least concern about liability)? The discussion by the Fifth Circuit about "product hopping" seems to assume that this change was motivated only by manipulation of the market rather than any motivation on Endo's part to reduce possible liability or actual concern for consumers. I hope there was some evidence in the record to support this conclusion that Endo only had inappropriate reasons to change the product.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31