*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.