The current approach to “reverse payment” settlements of drug patent litigation seeks to preclude only those settlements guaranteed to harm consumers, rather than all that could harm them. Antitrust tolerates the possibility of harm in order to give firms the freedom to make settlements that might benefit consumers, relative to what courts would achieve under patent law. Antitrust’s mission is not, however, to improve upon outcomes under patent law, but rather to prevent harm to consumers. Accordingly, antitrust must minimize the possibility of harm, even if that precludes the chance of gain. I show that a ban on all settlements that fix a date of entry, regardless of the existence of a reverse payment or the number of generic challengers, is the best way to do that.

Document Type


Publication Date

Fall 2016


Notes/Citation Information

Ramsi A. Woodcock, Uncertainty and Reverse Payments, 84(1) Tenn. L. Rev. 99-155 (2016).



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.