The ultimate winner in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that pharmaceutical pay-for-delay settlements are subject to antitrust review might not be the Federal Trade Commission or drug manufacturers, but rather the attorneys who represent them.
The court's ruling in FTC v. Actavis found a middle ground on the interplay between patent and antitrust law and created what lawyers in that space said was a subjective standard that made litigation over such settlements all the more likely.
This content has been archived.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]
