In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that settlements by which brand drug firms pay generics to delay entering the market could violate antitrust law. In the period since the decision, the lower courts have made clear that “payment” extends beyond cash to encompass non-cash forms of...

FTC v. Actavis was one of the most important antitrust cases of the modern era. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court ensconced antitrust's role in analyzing settlements by which brand firms pay generics to delay entering the market. The Court underscored the harms presented by large and...

Brand-name drug firms sometimes switch from one version of a drug to another to delay generic entry. In a case involving the acne-treating antibiotic Doryx, the Third Circuit failed to sufficiently appreciate the anticompetitive concerns with such “product hopping.” The court misapplied the...

Since the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis, the question that has received the most attention is whether “payment” is limited to cash or encompasses non-cash forms of consideration. The courts, including the Third Circuit in the “King Drug” case, have consistently held that...

This short article summarizes FTC v. Actavis, the first case in which the Supreme Court analyzed the antitrust legality of agreements by which brand-name drug companies pay generics to settle patent litigation and delay entering the market. It concludes that the ruling must be counted as a win...

In the Cephalon case, Judge Goldberg (ED Pa) denied defendants' summary judgment motions, sending the second reverse-payment-settlement case to trial. This short article analyzes the judge's decision, in particular addressing the appropriate liability standard under FTC v. Actavis and what...