FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Pay-for-delay settlements subject to rule of reason
By Kate O’Súilleabháin
June 2013
On June 17, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that “pay-for-delay” settlements (also known as “reverse-payment settlements”) between drug manufacturers are subject to rule of reason antitrust scrutiny for purposes of determining whether they violate federal antitrust laws.
The antitrust counselor: The Supreme Court reversed Dr. Miles: Now what?
By Mildred L. Calhoun
October 2007
The US Supreme Court recently overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, holding that all vertical price restraints are to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason. In other words, instead of being per se illegal and presumed anticompetitive, all vertical price restraints are now analyzed for reasonableness and their effect on competition.
Minimum resale price maintenance after Leegin
By Robert T. Joseph
October 2007
On June 28, 2007, in Leegin v. PSKS, Inc., the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. and held that vertical prices restraints are to be judged by the rule of reason under federal law.
The Antitrust Counselor: Benchmarking
By Mildred L. Calhoun
October 2003
The impetus to benchmark waxes and wanes according to the current management theory in vogue at any given time, but regardless of management imperatives, benchmarking always requires significant antitrust scrutiny.
The antitrust implications of creative pricing strategies
By Rebecca A.D. Nelson
December 2002
The Sherman Act1 was enacted in 1890. It is a very straightforward law, prohibiting "contracts, combinations or conspiracies ... in restraint of trade" (Section 1) and monopolization or attempted monopolization of any part of trade or commerce (Section 2).
Recent cases
December 2002
This opinion consolidates several cases arising out of an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of copper futures at artificially high levels on the international exchange markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Will Adam Smith’s statement be retired from trials?
By John L. Conlon
December 2002
A hoary but effective quote that government and plaintiff's counsel frequently use in their briefs and at trials in antitrust cases is Adam Smith's classic statement in the Wealth of Nations:
Enforcement of Illinois’ Wine and Spirits Industry Fair Dealing Act enjoined
April 2000
While the news media gave coverage to U.S. District Court Judge Joan B. Gottschall's preliminary injunction enjoining the Illinois Liquor Control Commission from enforcing the state's recently adopted Wine and Spirits Industry Fair Dealing Act ("Act"), they did not go into many of the details.
Select a Different Subject