Recent Cases Provide Hope For Reverse-Payment Defendants

By David Kully and Charles Weiss (September 21, 2017, 2:00 PM EDT) -- Over four years have now passed since the U.S. Supreme Court shook up the pharmaceutical industry by ruling in FTC v. Actavis Inc. that "large and unjustified" payments from brand manufacturers to generic manufacturers to settle infringement litigation "can sometimes violate the antitrust laws."[1] As litigation over "reverse payment" claims has played out in the intervening years, lower court have naturally attempted to supply further clarity to the Supreme Court's somewhat vague dictates, with recent cases concluding, for instance, that "payments" encompasses more than just a monetary exchange between brand and generic manufacturers,[2] and that plaintiffs can meet their pleading obligations concerning the existence of a "large" payment without asserting facts revealing the actual size of the payment.[3]...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!


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!