← All Authorities
United States Leading Case anti competitive agreements

Federal Trade Commission v Actavis Inc

570 U.S. 136 (2013)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2013
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Reverse payment patent settlements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason.

Key Principle

Reverse payment patent settlements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason.

Area of Law

competition

Related Cases

ACCC v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77

Full Federal Court considered the test for substantially lessening competition under s.50 CCA in the context of a rail freight acquisition.

ACCC v Yazaki Corporation (2018) 262 CLR 1

HCA upheld record cartel penalties for wire harness market conduct, affirming that penalties must deter contravener and others, considering nature, extent, and duration of cartel.

ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 78

Full Federal Court considered whether Pfizer's patent evergreening strategy in the pharmaceutical market constituted misuse of market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Federal Trade Commission v Actavis Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Federal Trade Commission v Act...