In the decision, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the Supreme Court reversed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision throwing out a case in which the FTC claims that one of these so-called pay-for-delay agreements represents an unlawful restraint of trade. From now on, the U.S. Supreme Court held, such agreements: (1) aren't necessarily anticompetitive if they do not keep a generic off the market for longer than the drug's patent term, and; (2) must be considered in the context of their possible benefits for consumers.

Read the full article from The New York Times here.