©2013. Published in Landslide, Vol. 6, No. 1, September/October 2013, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder.
For more than a decade, storm clouds of doubt and discord have been gathering over the legality of “reverse-payment” license agreements (RPLAs) in the context of Hatch-Waxman patent settlements. This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court finally stepped into the tempest and resolved the uncertainty: RPLAs are subject to antitrust scrutiny, despite the fact that one party to the agreement possesses a patent.
Premium Content For:
- Intellectual Property Law Section