TRANSATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT OF ANTITRUST JURISPRUDENCE: BRIDGING THE RULE GAP IN PATENT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REGULATION.

Patent dispute settlements have remained controversial as an anticompetitive patent practice in the pharmaceutical sector. Reverse payment settlements in particular have been on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic. They were traditionally induced in the different regulatory contexts of the United States and European Union but have since occurred without contextual divergence. Antitrust law governing reverse payment settlements has seen the vigorous development of jurisprudence by virtue of the vibrant exchange of substantive feedback between the United States and European Union. The U.S. Supreme Court's. Judgment in Actavis in 2013 provided a well-marked roadmap and guiding principles for reverse payment antitrust analysis while the Court of Justice of the European Union provided further clarification and elaboration in its first full-blown analysis in Lundbeck in 2021. Joint and complementary reading Of Actavis and Lundbeck, on top of other key decisions, serves, significantly, to close many jurisprudential loopholes that have been perceived to exist in either jurisdiction and thereby successfully bridges the rule gap that could have remained wide without robust transatlantic interaction. This Article purports mainly to provide an in-depth analysis of reverse payment settlements in the global context by discussing antitrust theories and practices in the United States and European Union from both comparative and reciprocal perspectives. This Article contributes substantially to the future mandate to establish the comprehensive legal framework of a higher magnitude of integrity and legitimacy in substance, which facilitates effective antitrust scrutiny for patent dispute settlement regulation. This Article reveals that the critical examination of convergence and divergence between the U.S. and EU antitrust law leads to the transatlantic development of jurisprudence as opposed to intensifying further complexity that might have occurred if the law and policy across the Atlantic had failed to share the common essence in carving out the effective rules due to the want of reciprocal and complementary approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Drake Law Review is the property of Drake Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)