Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Vol. 5 No. 2, Spring 2014; Pay-For-Delay And Interstate Commerce: Why Congress Or The Supreme Court Must Take Action Opposing Reverse Payment Settlements, Corey Hickman
Northern Illinois Law Review Supplement
A pay-for-delay drug settlement, also called a reverse payment settlement, occurs when a brand name pharmaceutical company agrees to pay the maker of a similar generic drug to delay the release of the generic drug into the stream of commerce, thereby allowing the brand name pharmaceutical company to eliminate competition for an extended period of time. These agreements allow both the brand name manufacturer and the generic manufacturer to profit immensely. These settlements cost the American public an estimated $3.5 billion per year. Further, reverse payment settlements on average prevent generic drugs from entering the stream of commerce for an …
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. V. Psks, Inc.: The Final Blow To The Use Of Per Se Rules In Judging Vertical Restraints - Why The Court Got It Wrong, Christopher S. Kelly
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. V. Psks, Inc.: The Final Blow To The Use Of Per Se Rules In Judging Vertical Restraints - Why The Court Got It Wrong, Christopher S. Kelly
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This case note provides an in depth discussion of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., in which the United States Supreme Court held that minimum resale price maintenance should be analyzed under the rule of reason, and thus striking down the century-old per se rule against vertical price fixing. After providing a brief overview of antitrust law, with a particular emphasis on Supreme Court vertical restraint jurisprudence, an in depth discussion of both the majority and dissenting Leegin opinions is provided. Next, the note argues that the Court erred in striking down the per se rule by finding …
Repeal Of Baseball's Longstanding Antitrust Exemption: Did Congress Strike Out Again?, Charles Allen Criswell Jr.
Repeal Of Baseball's Longstanding Antitrust Exemption: Did Congress Strike Out Again?, Charles Allen Criswell Jr.
Northern Illinois University Law Review
In 1922, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that baseball was not interstate commerce and was thus not subject to the restrictions of antitrust laws. Since that time, numerous courts refused to hear cases attacking baseball on antitrust grounds. Under the newly enacted Curt Flood Act of 1998, the practices of anyone involved in organized professional major league baseball that relate to the employment of major league baseball players are now subject to antitrust laws in the same manner as those involved in other professional sports businesses affecting interstate commerce. However, the bill makes no attempt to repeal …