Abstract: On July 16, 2012, in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, when challenged as an antitrust violation, a reverse payment settlement constitutes prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade. The “quick look rule of reason” analysis articulated by the court represents a well-intentioned divergence from the Second, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits’ “scope of the patent” test. It does not, however, fully consider the parties’ motivations and the possible public benefit from these settlements. This Comment argues that the court’s introduction of an overly restrictive standard introduces uncertainty that may avert the Hatch-Waxman Act’s goal of speeding public access to more affordable drugs.
BCLR Releases Vol. LIV No. 2
Boston College Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of our March 2013 issue. • Jeremy Waldron, Separation of […]
BCLR Elects New Board of Editors
On March 22, 2013, the membership of the Boston College Law Review elected a new Board of Editors for the […]
BCLR Editors Win Student Writing Competitions
Two members of the Boston College Law Review‘s Executive Board, Laura Kaplan and Michael Palmisciano, recently won national writing competitions […]