An imminent US Supreme Court ruling should resolve one of the thorniest legal issues facing pharmaceutical companies today.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Ark. Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, 625 F.3d 779, 791 (2d Cir. 2010).
Elhauge, E. & Krueger, A. Tex. Law Rev. 91, 283–330 (2012).
Reiffen, D. & Ward, M.R., Rev. Econ. Stat. 87, 37–49 (2005).
Petr.'s Br., FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013) (No. 12-1416).
Br. of 118 Law, Economics, and Business Professors, and the American Antitrust Institute, FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013) (No. 12-1416).
Higgins, M.J. & Graham, S.J.H. Science 326, 370–371 (2009).
Br. of Henry A. Waxman, FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013) (No. 12-1416).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sherkow, J. Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. and reverse-payment or pay-for-delay settlements. Nat Biotechnol 31, 316–317 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2542
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2542