Law360, New York ( August 1, 2014, 11:20 AM EDT) -- Some in the antitrust community have argued that, under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis Inc.[1], there is no need to litigate patent scope or validity in suits challenging so-called "reverse-payment patent settlements."[2] In our view, this position rests on an overly narrow reading of the decision, a failure to appreciate that the decision does not bypass the standards private plaintiffs must meet under Clayton Act Section 4, and/or the assumption that trying patent issues in the context of an antitrust case would be prohibitively expensive or administratively infeasible....
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.