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.

Navigating in the middle of the...
To view the full article, register now.

UK Financial Services

UK Financial Services

Read Our Latest UK Financial Services Coverage

Financial Services Law360 UK provides breaking news and analysis on the financial sector. Coverage includes UK and European Union policy, enforcement, and litigation involving banks, asset management firms, and other financial services organizations.