Antitrust & Trade Reg.
May 15, 2015
Pay-for-delay and the rule of reason
Last week, the state high court rejected arguments that settlement payments exceeding the costs of litigation or the value of services provided by a generic manufacturer are per se unlawful. By Howard M. Ullman and Robert P. Reznick
Last week, in a much-anticipated decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, S198616, the California Supreme Court held that so-called "reverse payment" patent settlements (RPSAs) are evaluated under a specific "structured" rule of reason analysis, and rejected plaintiffs' arguments that settlement payments exceeding the costs of litigation or the value of services provided by a generic manufacturer are per se unlawful.
Revers...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In