SEP-13(2)

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

Kent Bernard, Sep 30, 2013

When Does Interpretation Become Rewriting? The FTC Runs With the Actavis Decision

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.)

John Bigelow, Sep 30, 2013

Reverse Payments After Actavis

There are pro-competitive reasons why a patentee would be willing to make a settlement payment to the putative infringer. John Bigelow (Compass Lexecon)

James Langenfeld, Sep 30, 2013

Evaluating the Size of Reverse Payments In Light of the Supreme Court’s Decision in FTC v. Actavis

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)

Kevin Noonan, Sep 30, 2013

Supreme Court Rules in Reverse Payment Case

The Court’s decision will likely end

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!