FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Pay-for-delay settlements subject to rule of reason
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?
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
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
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.
Select a Different Subject