Courts’ Prescription for Reverse-Payment Settlements Still Unknown Almost a Year After FTC v. Actavis

This article is part of a Chronicle. See more from this Chronicle

Ankur Kapoor, Rosa Morales, Apr 29, 2014

Nearly a year after the Supreme Court held in FTC v. Actavis that reverse-payment settlement agreements between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason, federal district courts are still struggling with such threshold questions as what constitutes a “payment” subject to antitrust challenge and whether only a monetary transfer from the patent holder to the alleged infringer can form the basis of an antitrust claim attacking the competitive effects of the settlement.