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 alleged
Share on
|
|
The US District Court for the District of New Jersey notes that even if a Court accepts the premise of a reverse non-monetary payment, plaintiffs may allege facts to allow an estimate of the monetary value of that settlement or risk facing dismissal (Lipitor)
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.
