- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Pharmaceutical companies, the Federal Trade Commission, and antitrust and intellectual property attorneys waited with bated breath for the Supreme Court’s monumental decision on the legality of reverse-payment settlements, announced in FTC v. Actavis. On June 17, 2013, everyone got their answer… or did they?
In March, this blog outlined the reverse-payment settlements issue in detail and provided some idea of the issue, the circuit split, and the potential holdings of the Court. In short: On one hand, the Court could have chosen to reject the application of antitrust principles to patent law and uphold the “scope of the patent” test espoused by at least three different federal circuits. On the other hand, the Court could have determined that, because such agreement are so clearly anticompetitive, they are per se illegal, or at least merit quick-look treatment.
But that’s not what happened here. Interestingly, in a 5-3 decision [PDF] (Justice Alito recused himself), the Court ruled that reverse-payment settlement would be neither barred nor approved. Instead, the Court held that courts should apply the traditional “rule of reason” analysis to determine whether any particular reverse payment settlement is anticompetitive, and therefore prohibited by the Sherman Act. The Court was predictably split between the traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal justices, with Justice Kennedy wielding the all-powerful deciding vote. This may also partly explain why the Court did not come down harder on pharmaceutical companies: to obtain the necessary fifth vote, the majority may have backed down from espousing the quick-look analysis to the rule of reason analysis.
The majority rejected the contention that reverse-payment settlements fall within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent, but it also rejected the FTC’s contention that such payments should begin with a presumption of illegality. Instead, they adopted the often cumbersome rule of reason test, which requires a court to balance the benefits and anticompetitive results of the action in question to determine its legality.
What does this mean?
This means that the FTC and private-party enforcers can continue to bring antitrust actions against pharmaceutical companies (or any other type of company) for engaging in reverse-payment settlements. However, rather than having the advantage of presumed illegality, the complaining party must be prepared to prove its case. Moreover, it is important to note that the Actavis Court did not hold that the settlement in question was illegal. Rather, the Court held that lower courts must apply a more intensive and fact-specific test before concluding whether or not the settlement is anticompetitive.
The Court left the door open for lower courts to review reverse-payment settlements for antitrust violations. But because the Court required a full-blown rule of reason analysis, challenges to these settlements will be both costly to bring and costly to defend. Parties on both sides of the issue face increased risk. The results, then, may be two-fold: plaintiffs may be hesitant to challenge a settlement that involves a more moderate reverse payment, and defendants may be quicker to settle with the FTC if and when it does bring an action. The ruling also has the potential to curb the outrageous settlement values that the parties have negotiated to date.
More important, though, is the unpredictability that has historically followed the so-called “rule of reason.” In theory, this rule allows courts maximum flexibility in deciding whether a particular act is anticompetitive. But because the Court did not provide explicit factors that lower courts must review, it is reasonable to expect that decisions across circuits and districts will cause yet another rift that may require Supreme Court review at a later date. Only next time, given the many directions a court may take in applying rule of reason, the Court would be forced to deal with a more tangled jurisprudence.
Recent Blog Posts
- Guest Post: Harnessing the Power of Fans in Sports Franchise Ownership through Crowdfunding
- Faceboculus: The Metaverse had a Kickstarter
- Heigl v. Duane Reed: A Battle for Publicity
- Weev Still Got a CFAA Problem: Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Conviction Vacated
- Monday Morning JETLawg
- Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government information security intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution