Last week, I co-authored an article in the Los Angeles/San Francisco Daily Journal on the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Cipro Cases. There, the Court held that so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements are evaluated under a specific “structured” Rule of Reason analysis, and rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that settlement payments exceeding the costs of litigation or the value of services provided by a generic manufacturer are per se unlawful.
The article is behind a pay wall. When I get clearance to republish it, I will do so here.
* Updated 06/08/2015: The article is attached. * FNL-Orrick (DJ-5.14.15)