“After FTC v. Actavis, What Will the Trial of Antitrust Challenges to Patent Infringement Settlements Look Like and Will The Underlying Patent Infringement Case Have to be Litigated?” Webinar

Description

About the Webcast

The recent Supreme Court ruling in FTC v. Activas resolves a long-standing dispute in the approach to antitrust cases challenging so-called “reverse payments” settlements of patent infringement litigation between brand-name drug manufacturers and generic drug manufacturers. The majority came down squarely on the side of the rule of reason. This opens up the possibility that settlement agreements among competitors involving “reverse payments” will be relitigated, and raises questions as to how such litigation will proceed.

While the Activas ruling resolves the dispute regarding the appropriate test for analyzing “reverse payment” settlements, it does not resolve how that test should be applied. The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, provided implicit guidance that suggests how such cases are likely to proceed in the future, including whether they are likely to utilize the “full” rule of reason analysis outlined in Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, or a more “step-wise” approach, as outlined in California Dental Ass’n v. FTC.

Jeffery Cross, a Partner in the Antitrust Practice Group at Freeborn and Jacob Koering, a Partner in the Firm’s Intellectual Property Practice, will discuss:

• The “new” basis for responding to FTC challenges outlined by the Court in Activas
• Why smaller law firms representing rights holders may want to collaborate with larger law firms with specific capability in antitrust.