But Decision Raises as Many Questions as it Answers The Supreme Court yesterday held that it may be unlawful under the antitrust laws for a brand-name drug manufacturer to resolve patent litigation against an allegedly infringing generic drug maker by paying the generic to forestall market entry. Pharmaceutical companies might have legitimate, procompetitive reasons for agreeing to such “reverse-payment settlements,” but as Justice Breyer writes for five of the Court's justices, “the relevant antitrust question is: What are those reasons?” The Court suggests a few possible answers, but otherwise leaves litigants and district courts to navigate an undefined “rule of reason” framework on their own. In so doing, the majority stresses that litigating the strength of the patent (i.e., its
Share on
|
|
The US Supreme Court holds that reverse-payment in patent settlements should be reviewed under the antitrust rule of reason (Actavis)
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.
