Supreme Court’s pay-for-delay ruling raises more questions than answers
On 17 June 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled in Federal Trade Commission v Actavis that antitrust challenges to pay-for-delay agreements between drug makers should be analysed under the ‘rule of reason’.
The court took a middle ground between the position advanced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which argued that the burden should be on the settling parties to demonstrate that a pay-for-delay agreement is not anticompetitive, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s ‘scope of the patent’ test, which would presume a pay-for-delay settlement legal as long as the agreement does not exceed the subject matter or term of a valid patent.
In forging its own approach, the Supreme Court has set the stage for increased and more costly challenges of pay-for-delay settlements by the FTC and private parties moving forward…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Allen & Overy
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Allen & Overy
Asset managers continue to face significant regulatory challenges and 2014 marks the first full year of operation for many new regulations.
Barack Obama has signed an executive order authorising targeted sanctions against individuals determined to be connected with the ongoing situation in Ukraine.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Imagine you’re the general counsel of London-based private equity investor BC Partners. You’re sipping on your coffee, hashing out the details of your imminent £382m investment into UK-based business publishing company Mergermarket.
‘Exotic’ investors and opportunities for legal work beyond M&A feature in The Lawyer’s high-level roundtable debate on south-east Europe