A US District Court reminds that even if a Court accepts the premise of a reverse non-monetary payment after Actavis, plaintiffs may have to allege facts to allow an estimate of the monetary value of that settlement or risk facing dismissal (Lipitor)

Plausibly Alleging Non-monetary Settlements as Reverse Payments After Actavis* In In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, No. 12 Civ. 2389 (D.N.J.), U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan has confirmed his prior ruling that under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly, Iqbal, and FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), plaintiffs claiming an antitrust violation based on a non-monetary settlement must allege the value of the settlement to survive dismissal of their complaint. In a previous post, we mentioned Lipitor as a “reverse payment” case that was decided in the wake of Actavis. In Actavis, the Supreme Court ruled that reverse payments—in which a plaintiff, typically a brand-name drug maker, in a patent infringement action agrees to pay the

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

  • Siemens (New York)
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

Quotation

Deirdre McEvoy, George LoBiondo, A US District Court reminds that even if a Court accepts the premise of a reverse non-monetary payment after Actavis, plaintiffs may have to allege facts to allow an estimate of the monetary value of that settlement or risk facing dismissal (Lipitor), 12 September 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin September 2014, Art. N° 72547

Visites 108

All issues

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