These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23563426)

  • 1. Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. and reverse-payment or pay-for-delay settlements.
    Sherkow JS
    Nat Biotechnol; 2013 Apr; 31(4):316-7. PubMed ID: 23563426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reanalyzing reverse payment settlements: a solution to the patentee's dilemma.
    Wang Z
    Cornell Law Rev; 2014 Jul; 99(5):1227-58. PubMed ID: 25112001
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The wake of FTC v. Actavis: practical implications on the pharmaceutical industry.
    Ritter M; Tempesta J; Ragusa P
    Pharm Pat Anal; 2014 Jul; 3(4):345-7. PubMed ID: 25291307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Are reverse payments and pay-for-delay settlements business as usual or an anticompetitive practice?
    Shah S; Silva MA; Malloy MJ
    Nat Biotechnol; 2016 Jul; 34(7):716-9. PubMed ID: 27404880
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The FTC v. Actavis roadmap: a guide to properly applying the rule of reason standard in reverse payment cases.
    Sharkey N
    J Leg Med; 2014; 35(3):445-66. PubMed ID: 25207633
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Supreme Court rules in favor of 'pay-for-delay' settlements.
    Sklan A
    Pharm Pat Anal; 2013 Sep; 2(5):582-3. PubMed ID: 24386654
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Federal Trade Commission Oversight of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
    Kapczynski Jd A
    JAMA; 2024 Jun; 331(23):1995-1996. PubMed ID: 38767914
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The "reverse payment paradox": an overview of the legality of reverse exclusionary payments in the pharmaceutical industry.
    Brockmeier MS
    Health Care Law Mon; 2010 Mar; 2010(3):2-10. PubMed ID: 20329564
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Unsettling drug patent settlements: a framework for presumptive illegality.
    Carrier MA
    Mich Law Rev; 2009 Oct; 108(1):37-80. PubMed ID: 20535881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Should a Law Governing the Pharmaceutical Market Be Ethically Examined Based on Its Intent or Its Practical Applications?
    Warchol JM
    AMA J Ethics; 2019 Aug; 21(8):E661-667. PubMed ID: 31397661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Pharmaceutical patent settlements: the antitrust risks.
    Balto DA
    Food Drug Law J; 2000; 55(3):321-41. PubMed ID: 11824464
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Settlements between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies: a reasonable antitrust analysis of reverse payments.
    Yvon AM
    Fordham Law Rev; 2006 Dec; 75(3):1883-912. PubMed ID: 17312596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An economic assessment of patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry.
    Dickey B; Orszag J; Tyson L
    Ann Health Law; 2010; 19(2):367-400, 2 p preceding i. PubMed ID: 21443148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Not everyone is perfct: about off-patent drugs.
    Ann Oncol; 2001 Jun; 12(6):728. PubMed ID: 11484945
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Competition and antitrust enforcement in the changing pharmaceutical marketplace.
    Whitener MD
    Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(2):301-7. PubMed ID: 10342998
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Delaying generic competition--corporate payoffs and the future of Plavix.
    Shuchman M
    N Engl J Med; 2006 Sep; 355(13):1297-300. PubMed ID: 17005945
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sequenom, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Personalized Medicine.
    Kodroff CA
    Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev; 2016 Jun; 27(2):49-52. PubMed ID: 27267566
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pharmaceutical patent life-cycle management after KSR v. Teleflex.
    Furrow ME
    Food Drug Law J; 2008; 63(1):275-320. PubMed ID: 18561462
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Intellectual property. Drug patents at the Supreme Court.
    Hemphill CS; Sampat B
    Science; 2013 Mar; 339(6126):1386-7. PubMed ID: 23520096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Battle not over: FTC wants Supreme Court to review Palmyra case.
    Carlson J
    Mod Healthc; 2012 Mar; 42(10):8-9. PubMed ID: 22458067
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.