United States Leading Case anti competitive agreementspatents

FTC v Actavis Inc

570 US 136 (2013)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtUS Supreme Court

Year2013

StatusBinding authority

Summary

Reverse payment (pay-for-delay) patent settlements are subject to antitrust rule-of-reason scrutiny, with payment size indicating market power and competition suppression.

Key Principle

Reverse payment patent settlements (pay-for-delay) are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason; the size of the payment may indicate the patentee has market power and the payment substitutes for the risk of competition.

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 FTC v Actavis Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain FTC v Actavis Inc