The US Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the 11th circuit and leaves the structuring of the rule of reason antitrust litigation to the lower courts (Actavis)

Just What on Earth Did Actavis Really Say? And Does It Mean Something for Section 1 More Broadly?* It’s going to be a strict, nearly-per-se quick look rule, folks, in more or less every reverse-payment case likely to be brought from here on out. Dollars-to-donuts. A few weeks have gone by, and quite a lot of folks are chewing over the entrails of Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. The case may finally have ended the decades-long saga of the so-called “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements, in which a branded incumbent drug maker pays a would-be generic entrant to stay out of its market and respect its patent. Unlike most lower courts to consider them, the five-Justice Actavis majority found these deals subject to Sherman Act challenge, under a standard that seems

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

Author

  • Cleveland-Marshall School of Law

Quotation

Christopher Sagers, The US Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the 11th circuit and leaves the structuring of the rule of reason antitrust litigation to the lower courts (Actavis), 17 June 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin June 2013, Art. N° 54663

Visites 291

All issues

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