In Re Cipro Cases I & Ii. [nine Coordinated Cases]

Summary

The court held that California antitrust law does not immunize a reverse-payment patent settlement merely because the restraint falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. It rejected the scope-of-the-patent test and adopted a structured rule of reason requiring examination of delayed generic entry, payments exceeding the value of collateral services and avoided litigation costs, and any procompetitive justifications. Because the lower courts treated the patent as conclusively valid and used its full term as the competition benchmark, the court reversed and remanded.