Applying 'structured' rule of reason to reverse payments

Daily Journal
May.14.2015

Orrick litigators Howard Ullman and Rob Reznick co-authored an article analyzing a much-anticipated decision from the California Supreme Court concerning reverse payment patent settlements. The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that settlement payments exceeding the costs of litigation or the value of services provided by a generic manufacturer are per se unlawful.

Authors

Robert Reznick Senior Counsel, Complex Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Antitrust & Competition

Washington, D.C.

See my bio

D:+1 202 339 8409
E: [email protected]

Practice:

Technology & Innovation Sector
Life Sciences Sector
Complex Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Antitrust & Competition
Intellectual Property

vCard

See full bio

Robert Reznick Senior Counsel

Washington, D.C.

He currently is national coordinating counsel for a major oil company in connection with its climate change litigation. He previously served as co-lead counsel to a major international pharmaceutical manufacturer in the defense of nationwide litigation challenging industry pricing practices.

Rob’s experience includes extensive work in antitrust and False Claims Act cases, claims alleging fraud, and agency enforcement actions. His pharmaceutical industry activities include service as outside counsel to and Corporate Secretary of the Pharmaceutical Security Institute, Inc., the industry’s not-for-profit trade organization dedicated to the fight against pharmaceutical counterfeiting.

He is Managing Editor of The World in U.S. Courts, Orrick’s quarterly review of court decisions addressing personal jurisdiction over non-U.S. parties and the extraterritorial application of U.S. law to global business and cross-border activities.

Rob also served two terms on the District of Columbia Bar’s Pro Bono standing committee. Before joining Orrick, he was a partner in Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Clifford & Warnke, in Washington, D.C.