The last two months saw no fewer than three U.S. Supreme Court patent decisions, two of them illustrating the concerns of a majority of the court that patent rights not be used to stifle innovation or competition.
The only one of this trio of cases that produced a dissent (and a sharp one at that) is Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013), in which the court ruled 5-3 that "reverse payment" settlement agreements, where the patent holder pays an accused infringer in return for an agreement that the infringer will not practice the invention during the term of the patent, may violate the antitrust laws.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
