On Monday, June 17, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., bringing some clarity to the antitrust treatment of so-called reverse payment patent settlements between brand-name drug manufacturers and would-be generic competitors, but leaving many open questions as well [1]. In an opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision by a vote of 5-3 and rejected both the respondents’ proposed “scope of the patent” test that had immunized most settlements from antitrust challenge and the “presumptively unlawful” standard endorsed by the FTC [2]. The Court instead opted for a rule of reason analysis, leaving it to the lower courts to sort out the specifics. The decision is unlikely to reduce the number of investigations or lawsuits
Share on
|
|
The US Supreme Court holds that “reverse payment” patent settlements between brand-name drug manufacturers and would-be generic competitors 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.
