Where Pay-For-Delay Stands One Year After Actavis

By Melissa Lipman ( June 18, 2014, 9:24 PM EDT) -- A year after the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission and private plaintiffs alike could use antitrust laws to challenge so-called pay-for-delay settlements, courts around the country have tackled questions about how to apply that ruling, ranging from what counts as a payment to whether Noerr-Pennington immunity can protect court-sanctioned deals. . . .

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.


A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

This past year, a handful of attorneys secured billions of dollars in settlements and judgments for both classes and individual plaintiffs against massive companies and organizations like Facebook, Dell, the National Association of Realtors, Johnson & Johnson, UFC and Credit Suisse, earning them recognition as Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar for 2025.