The US Supreme Court opens reverse payment patent settlement agreements to antitrust challenge (Actavis)

A “reverse payment” settlement agreement is not entitled to “near-automatic antitrust immunity” simply because its anticompetitive effects fall within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week in a five-to-three decision. Although such agreements, also known as “pay-for-delay” settlements, are not presumptively unlawful, the FTC should be permitted to challenge reverse-payment agreements between Solvay Pharmaceuticals and would-be generic competitors Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Actavis, Inc.) and Paddock Pharmaceuticals under a rule of reason analysis. The case is FTC v. Actavis, Inc., Dkt. No. 12-416. Reverse payment agreements generally involve a brand-name drug manufacturer paying a potential rival to abandon patent challenges

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

  • Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)

Quotation

Jeffrey May, The US Supreme Court opens reverse payment patent settlement agreements to antitrust challenge (Actavis), 17 June 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin Competition in the Pharmaceutical sector, Art. N° 52993

Visites 118

All issues

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