The California Supreme Court delineates a structured rule of reason analysis for evaluating reverse payments or pay-for-delay settlements (Cipro)

California Supreme Court Delineates a Structured Rule of Reason Analysis for Evaluating Reverse Payment or Pay-for-Delay Settlements* On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616 (May 7, 2015) (Cipro). Cipro holds that reverse payment settlements can be challenged under California’s Cartwright Act, thereby reviving class actions filed by California indirect purchasers. The California Supreme Court, however, went further, by delineating a structured rule of reason analysis to be used in evaluating the legality of reverse payment settlements, something the U.S. Supreme Court had left up to future lower courts to develop. [1] Cipro began more than a decade

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

Helen Cho Eckert, Jennifer M. Driscoll-Chippendale, The California Supreme Court delineates a structured rule of reason analysis for evaluating reverse payments or pay-for-delay settlements (Cipro), 7 May 2015, e-Competitions Bulletin May 2015, Art. N° 73345

Visites 360

All issues

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