Law Seminars International Presents: Call from Anywhere for a One-Hour Expert Analysis by Phone on

FTC v. Actavis
Practical Implications of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision

July 16, 2013
Call in from Anywhere!
12-1 pm Pacific / 3-4 pm Eastern

Who Should Call In

Attorneys, executives, government officials, policy-makers and others with interest in antitrust issues surrounding pharmaceutical patents.

Why You Should Call In

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. issued a landmark decision addressing the antitrust implications of reverse-payment settlements between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic challengers. The Supreme Court rejected both tests commonly used by circuit courts in favor of the same traditional Rule of Reason test that applies to most other antitrust claims. This important decision is likely to create more questions than answers and will complicate decision-making by those engaged in pharmaceutical patent litigation.

Antitrust agencies and class-action plaintiffs have universally challenged these reverse-payment settlements, also known as "pay to delay" settlements because of their common use by brand-name pharmaceuticals to pay off rivals who would otherwise market their own low-cost version of popular brand name drugs. The Supreme Court's decision is a victory for federal regulators seeking to challenge such payments under antitrust laws. However, challenges to the settlements must still meet the customary Rule of Reason test by showing that it is harmful to competition. The Court also offered its own guidance to district courts, not only on the process for resolving these antitrust claims, but also on substantive issues that are likely to reoccur in future cases.

In this one-hour TeleBriefing, a distinguished panel with expertise in reverse-payment settlements and the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law will discuss the practical implications of this landmark case and related antitrust issues involving pharmaceutical patents.

What You Will Learn

What Attendees Have Said About Similar Programs


Tuesday, July 16, 2013

12:00 pm

FTC v. Actavis

Introduction & Overview

Jarod M. Bona, Esq., Of Counsel, Moderator
DLA Piper / San Diego, CA

Plaintiff's Perspective

Markus H. Meier, Esq., Assistant Director, Health Care Division, Bureau of Competition,
Federal Trade Commission / Washington, DC

Defendant's Perspective

Rohit K. Singla, Esq., Partner
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP / San Francisco, CA

1:00 pm

Q & A (for up to 30 minutes)



Individual rate: $150

Group rate: $100 per person attending on the same line

Financial aid is available to those who qualify. Contact our office for more information.

Continuing Education Credits

This TeleBriefing qualifies for 1.0 Washington CLE credits. For CLE credits in other states:

We will apply for credits in the following states: AK, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY (experienced attorneys only), OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, and WY.

You can self-report for credits in: CO, DE, FL, HI, MT, and NJ.

CLE credits currently are not available in: DC, MA, MD, MI, OH, or SD.

If you need other types of credits, please call us at (206) 567-4490.

Call In Info

The dial-in number and a link to the materials will be emailed to you the day before the TeleBriefing. All orders are processed within one business day of receipt.

If You Cannot Dial In

An entire audio recording and the written materials are available for $150. You may choose to receive the files via email, on a CD or on a flash drive. Programs are available 48 hours after the TeleBriefing or from the date we receive payment. CD and flashdrive orders are sent via First Class mail within two business days after the TeleBriefing or from the date we receive payment.
Order Homestudy

Cancellation & Substitution

You may substitute another person at any time or receive a recording of the program (see If You Cannot Attend).

Our Distinguished Panel

Jarod M. Bona is an antitrust and competition attorney for DLA Piper. He has recently represented technology, consumer, manufacturing, banking, insurance, energy and other Fortune 500 clients in civil and governmental actions involving antitrust, unfair competition, RICO, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, business torts, products liability, malicious prosecution, securities laws and alleged kickbacks. He has also represented clients in numerous state and federal appellate courts throughout the country, and has recently argued before the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota Court of Appeals. Mr. Bona is a frequent commentator on antitrust developments, and writes several articles each year for a variety of publications.

Markus H. Meier, Assistant Director in charge of the Health Care Division at the Federal Trade Commission, leads an office comprised of more than thirty-five lawyers and other professionals who investigate and litigate alleged violations of the antitrust law by physicians and other health-care professionals, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and health plans. Previously he was with the law firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott where he worked on private antitrust litigation and counseling, and represented clients before the FTC and Department of Justice.

Rohit K. Singla, litigation partner at Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, focuses on antitrust and intellectual property issues in high-technology sectors. Mr. Singla has developed a particular specialty in the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property, such as antitrust challenges to patent settlements, claims of sham patent litigation, technological tying and intellectual property defenses to antitrust claims.He has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including software, entertainment, videogames, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.