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
Sylvia Kierszenbaum and Willem Van de Wiele have authored an article in The International Capital Markets Review.
The Provincial Court of Madrid has upheld a hybrid dispute resolution clause. The judgment is the first one in Spain that recognises the validity of hybrid arbitration clauses.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Advisers get stuck into the disentangling task, to unhitch troubled bank from group
Shell legal director Peter Rees is switching litigation control away from external counsel to a unified global team of in-housers