F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
*140 Company A sues Company B for patent infringement. The two companies settle under terms that require (1) Company B, the claimed infringer, not to produce the patented product until the patent's term expires, and (2) Company A, the patentee, to pay B many millions of dollars. Because *141 the settlement requires the patentee to pay the alleged infringer, rather than the other way around, this kind of settlement agreement is often called a "reverse payment" settlement agreement. And the basic question here is whether such an agreement can sometimes unreasonably diminish competition in violation of…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by234 opinions
- Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- Commil United States, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2015
- New York Ex Rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- AstraZeneca AB v. United Food & Commercial Workers UnionsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015
- In Re Modafinil Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
229 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.