The US Supreme Court establishes a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law (Actavis)

FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?* On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. In FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 756 (2013), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) prevailed when the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-3 decision [1] that reverse payment settlements in Hatch-Waxman cases are subject to antitrust scrutiny, resolving a circuit split and impassioned debate among antitrust lawyers. This is only the second antitrust case in 20 years where the enforcers have prevailed. The Court, however, rejected the FTC’s position that reverse-payment settlements were presumptively illegal, ruling that they are subject to scrutiny under the rule of

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Bradley Graveline, Jennifer M. Driscoll-Chippendale, The US Supreme Court establishes a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law (Actavis), 17 June 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin June 2013, Art. N° 66794

Visites 48

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues