哈奇-韦克斯曼专利案和解-最高法院搅动沼泽

Kent S. Bernard
{"title":"哈奇-韦克斯曼专利案和解-最高法院搅动沼泽","authors":"Kent S. Bernard","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2335615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. rejected both (a) the settling parties’ view that any settlement within the scope of the patent at issue and not the result of sham litigation was legal; and (b) the FTC’s view that any settlement which involved a transfer of any money or asset from the patent owner to the challenger was presumptively illegal. The Court chose to open up door (c), and require that there be a full “rule of reason” inquiry into the settlement.This article explores what that means in terms of settlements going forward, and suggests reforms that might make the whole system work better.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hatch-Waxman Patent Case Settlements – The Supreme Court Churns the Swamp\",\"authors\":\"Kent S. Bernard\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2335615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. rejected both (a) the settling parties’ view that any settlement within the scope of the patent at issue and not the result of sham litigation was legal; and (b) the FTC’s view that any settlement which involved a transfer of any money or asset from the patent owner to the challenger was presumptively illegal. The Court chose to open up door (c), and require that there be a full “rule of reason” inquiry into the settlement.This article explores what that means in terms of settlements going forward, and suggests reforms that might make the whole system work better.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2335615\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2335615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在FTC诉Actavis, Inc.一案中,最高法院驳回了(a)和解双方的观点,即在争议专利范围内的任何和解都是合法的,而不是虚假诉讼的结果;以及(b)联邦贸易委员会认为任何涉及从专利所有人向挑战者转移任何金钱或资产的和解都是推定非法的。法院选择打开(c)门,并要求对和解进行全面的“理性原则”调查。本文探讨了这对未来的解决方案意味着什么,并提出了可能使整个系统更好运行的改革建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hatch-Waxman Patent Case Settlements – The Supreme Court Churns the Swamp
The Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. rejected both (a) the settling parties’ view that any settlement within the scope of the patent at issue and not the result of sham litigation was legal; and (b) the FTC’s view that any settlement which involved a transfer of any money or asset from the patent owner to the challenger was presumptively illegal. The Court chose to open up door (c), and require that there be a full “rule of reason” inquiry into the settlement.This article explores what that means in terms of settlements going forward, and suggests reforms that might make the whole system work better.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信