Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court finally tackled Reverse Payments. In Actavis, they leaned away from many lower court decisions and acknowledged that reverse payments (or “pay for delay”) can create antitrust violations. But they didn’t give the FTC—who has waged war on the concept for several years—carte blanche. Our distinguished panel has had time to reflect on this decision and studies what it means for reverse payments going forward—and how the decision also impacts non U.S. practices.
-
The Supreme Court Looks at Reverse Payments: The U.S. Perspective
When Does Interpretation Become Rewriting? The FTC Runs With the Actavis Decision
The FTC is trying to construct an opinion that the Court never issued and have us adopt a standard that the Court unanimously rejected. Kent Bernard (Fordham Univ.)
Reverse Payments After Actavis
There are pro-competitive reasons why a patentee would be willing to make a settlement payment to the putative infringer. John Bigelow (Compass Lexecon)
Evaluating the Size of Reverse Payments In Light of the Supreme Court’s Decision in FTC v. Actavis
It is economically troubling when one of the relatively few guideposts the majority decision discusses is the size of the reverse payment. James Langenfeld (Navigant Economics)
Supreme Court Rules in Reverse Payment Case
The Court’s decision will likely end reverse payment settlement agreements, making generic competition less likely. Kevin Noonan (McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff)
FTC v. Actavis: Has the Dust Really Settled?
Until the dust settles and a framework is implemented, whether Actavis will benefit or hinder competition remains to be seen, but what it clearly means is more antitrust litigation. Richard Ripley & C. Kyle Musgrove (Haynes and Boones LLP)
-
The Supreme Courts Looks at Reverse Payments: The European and Canadian Perspectives
Reverse Payment Settlements in the United States and Europe: Moving Toward An Effects-Based Approach
Vice President Almunia lauded a convergence of the U.S. and European approaches to the arrangements: case-by-case and factually intensive. William H. Rooney, David Tayar, & Agathe Richard (Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP)
Reverse Payment Settlement Cases: Under the Rule of Reason By Object? A Brief Reflection
It does not assist the development of sound case law nor legal certainty if reverse payment settlement agreements continue to be labeled as by object restrictions. Marleen Van Kerckhove (Arnold & Porter)
Canadian Perspectives on Competition Law and Reverse Payments Following FTC v. Actavis
The decision is interesting, in particular for its discussion of the ambiguous competitive effects that might arise from reverse payments. Navin Joneja, David Rosner, & Joshua Krane, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP)
