(BQ) Part 2 book "Antitrust law and intellectual property rights" has contents: The antitrust implications of horizontal agreements involving intellectual property, the antitrust implications of vertical agreements involving intellectual property, injury, remedies, jurisdiction and procedural issues. | CHAPTER 11 Pharmaceutical Settlements and Reverse Payments In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 896 (6th Cir. 2003) OBERDORFER, District Judge. This antitrust case arises out of an agreement entered into by the defendants, Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc. (“HMR”), the manufacturer of the prescription drug Cardizem CD, and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Andrx”), then a potential manufacturer of a generic version of that drug. The agreement provided, in essence, that Andrx, in exchange for quarterly payments of $10 million, would refrain from marketing its generic version of Cardizem CD even after it had received FDA approval (the “Agreement”). The plaintiffs are direct and indirect purchasers of Cardizem CD who filed complaints challenging the Agreement as a violation of federal and state antitrust laws. After denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss, see In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 105 618 () (“. I”) and granting the plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment, id., 105 682 () (“. II”), the district court certified two questions for interlocutory appeal: *** (2) . . . In determining whether Plaintiffs’ motions for partial judgment were properly granted, whether the Defendants’ September 24, 1997 Agreement constitutes a restraint of trade that is illegal per se under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 . § 1, and under the corresponding state antitrust laws at issue in this litigation. *** Answer to Second Certified Question: Yes. The Agreement whereby HMR paid Andrx $40 million per year not to enter the United States market for Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents is a horizontal market allocation agreement and, 387 388 Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property Rights as such, is per se illegal under the Sherman Act and under the corresponding state antitrust laws. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the .
