A Comparative Analysis of the Legal Framework and Case Law on Reverse Payment Settlement Agreement in the United States and South Korea

What the paper says

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. * J.D., 2015, Northwestern University School of Law; B.A., 2006, University of California, Berkeley. I thank God for His amazing grace. I thank my wife and daughter, Jina and Elizabeth, for their unrelenting support and faith in me. Laura Kelly and the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business’ editorial staff have provided invaluable support and feedback. Jin Woo Hwang was gracious to share his practical knowledge on the South Korean legal system. This Comment would not exist without them. Any error or shortcoming found in this Comment is mine. 4KIM.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 9/29/15 1:45 PM Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 35:377 (2015) 378 TABLE OF CONTENTS