Understand the Future Practical Implications of Pay-For-Delay Patent Settlements

“Reverse payment” settlements in brand / generic pharmaceutical patent litigation became the norm.  FTC and other private litigants challenged these settlements under antitrust laws.  Some courts said the settlements were immune from antitrust laws, others said they were illegal.  On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis ruled that those settlements are neither per se legal or illegal under antitrust laws, but that whether each settlement was a violation depended on its own surrounding circumstances. The future practical implications are enormous for parties.
In this webinar, we will provide a brief background of the case, but more importantly focus on the future implications. We will discuss:

• The particular reverse settlement payments at issue
   
• The Actavis case, what was alleged, what was decided, and how similar cases were decided in other courts
   
• How will such lawsuits be litigated and what steps should future defendants take to insulate themselves from charges of anti-competition
   
• What kind of settlements will be likely targeted
   
• What defenses may exist to defendants to show the reasonableness and what role, if any, will the merits of the patent case have
   
• What remedies might the plaintiffs seek and what practical effect will that have on the parties.
   
• Future of settlements

Shashank Upadhye and Scott Schaefers, partners in the Chicago office of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP will give their guidance on the IP and antitrust implications of the FTC v. Actavis case.