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]...