In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, FTC v.
Actavis, in which it ordered the lower courts to apply the rule of reason to
“reverse payment settlement agreements.” As the leading jurisdiction for
antitrust and intellectual property laws, the United States is once again poised
to influence foreign jurisdictions on the issue of reverse payment settlement
agreements. In this context, South Korea presents a ripe opportunity for a
comparative study because it recently adopted a patent-approval linkage system
under which reverse payment settlement agreements will likely become a
contentious issue. In particular, the South Korean Supreme Court’s recent case,
GlaxoSmithKline v. Korea Fair Trade Commission, offers valuable insight into
how Korean courts will likely approach this issue. This Comment contends that
the U.S. case law, including Actavis, offers important insights for the Korean
legal community and that Korea’s experiment has potential to offering a fresh
approach in tackling reverse payment settlement agreements.
Sung San Kim,
A Comparative Analysis of the Legal Framework and Case Law on Reverse Payment Settlement Agreement in the United States and South Korea,
Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.