Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court finally tackled Reverse Payments. In Actavis, they leaned away from many lower court decisions and acknowledged that reverse payments (or “pay for delay”) can create antitrust violations. But they didn’t give the FTC—who has waged war on the concept for several years—carte blanche. Our distinguished panel has had time to reflect on this decision and studies what it means for reverse payments going forward—and how the decision also impacts non U.S. practices.
The Supreme Court Looks at Reverse Payments: The U.S. Perspective
The FTC is trying to construct an opinion that the Court never issued and have us adopt a standard that the Court unanimously rejected. Kent Bernard (Fordham Univ.)
There are pro-competitive reasons why a patentee would be willing to make a settlement payment to the putative infringer. John Bigelow (Compass Lexecon)
It is economically troubling when one of the relatively few guideposts the majority decision discusses is the size of the reverse payment. James Langenfeld (Navigant Economics)
The Court’s decision will likely end