Perspective
Jun. 22, 2013
Justices say pay-for-delay deals with generic drug makers subject to antitrust 'rule of reason'
Those expecting the Supreme Court to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to these controversial agreements were disappointed. By Paolo Morante and Jarod M. Bona
Have you ever sought clarification only to receive a response that created more questions than answers? That is what happened to the litigants in the Supreme Court's most recent antitrust decision, which addressed reverse-payment settlement agreements of pharmaceutical intellectual property litigation.
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 2013 DJDAR 7655 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court held 5-3 that ...
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