Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Expert Analysis

The Best Rule Of Reason For Pay-For-Delay

Law360, New York (July 18, 2013, 1:48 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court's anxiously awaited ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc. established that "reverse payments" or "pay-for-delay" settlements, as they occur in the context of Hatch-Waxman Act provisions, may violate antitrust law. While the majority opinion dashed the defendant's contention that such settlements should be presumed legal if within the confines of the patent's scope, neither did it embrace the FTC's position that pay-for-delay settlements are per se illegal, or at least illegal as a rebuttable presumption....

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.


A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Related Sections

Companies

Government Agencies

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!