In re Cipro Cases I & II

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that justification of reverse payment “will not turn on whether the patent would ultimately have been proved valid or invalid” because “[a]greements must be assessed as of the time they are made, at which point the patent’s validity is unknown and unknowable”
• noting that a settlement postponing market entry, but not accompanied by a reverse payment, would be a “fair approximation” of the strength of the patent suit
• stating that a court “may consider” factors including purpose
• '‘nothing in the United States Supreme Court’s discussion of the legal rules at the boundary between antitrust and patent law hinged on the happenstance that the case under review involved a public prosecutor.”
• recog-nizing that procompetitive justifications must be considered
• “Just as later invalidation of a patent does not prove an agreement when made was anticompetitive, later evidence of validity will not automatically demonstrate an agreement was procompetitive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).