CASE COMMENTS: EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW – INTEREST IN BRINGING PROCEEDINGS – PAY-FOR-DELAY

United States: The United States Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit adopts a restrictive analysis of antitrust interest in bringing proceedings (Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation Indirect Purchaser Class)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. By imposing the rule of reason on lower courts to review entry deferral agreements, the Actavis judgment did not resolve all the difficulties posed by pay-for-delay ( Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct 2223, 2013, obs. J.-C. Roda). Indeed, the choice of the rule of reason has not dried up the litigation. At present, the dispute is crystallizing on the other side of the Atlantic around rather sensitive procedural issues. The case under comment shows how difficult it is for the lower courts to implement the principles set out in the Supreme Court's judgment. The most important problems are encountered in private enforcement litigation. While in

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

  • University of Grenoble Alpes

Quotation

Walid Chaiehloudj, United States: The United States Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit adopts a restrictive analysis of antitrust interest in bringing proceedings (Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation Indirect Purchaser Class), 13 February 2018, Concurrences N° 1-2018, Art. N° 86280, pp. 209-211

Visites 175

All reviews