FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Pay-for-delay settlements subject to rule of reason
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
June 2013
On June 17, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that “pay-for-delay” settlements (also known as “reverse-payment settlements”) between drug manufacturers are subject to rule of reason antitrust scrutiny for purposes of determining whether they violate federal antitrust laws.
Editor’s comments
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
August 2012
An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate Ó Súilleabháin.
Recent developments in litigation on “pay-for-delay” settlements
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
August 2012
On July 16, a unanimous panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that any payment by a pharmaceutical company owning a patent to a generics drug manufacturer who agrees to delay entry into the market is prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation.
Editor’s comment
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
March 2012
An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate Ó Súilleabháin.
Editor’s note
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
September 2011
An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate Ó Súilleabháin.
Editor’s note
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
April 2011
An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate O Suilleabhain.
Editor’s note
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
February 2011
An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate O Suilleabhain.
Editor’s note
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
September 2010
An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate O Suilleabhain.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
Select a Different Author
