Teva, owner of patents covering the active ingredient in the drug Coreg, and Glenmark, which had sought to introduce a generic version of the drug have settled their differences and submitted a stipulation of dismissal in their District of New Jersey case. When the primary patent on Coreg expired in 2007, a number of companies sought FDA approval to introduce generic versions. Teva, however, began a campaign to prevent the introduction of generic Coreg alleging that it held patents on the active agreement. Teva filed this suit alleging that Glenmark’s effort to introduce a generic version of Coreg qualified as willful infringement of Teva patents justifying treble damage liability. Glenmark responded with an antitrust counter-claim alleging that Teva obtained the patents by fraud on the patent office and had engaged in sham litigation. Interestingly, Glenmark had argued that “Teva demonstrates a pattern of enforcing these questionable patents . . . by threatening and instituting suit and then offering royalty rates with a Teva API supply agreement in violation of the Sherman Act to restrict genetic competition . . . .”