a much broader category of consideration than cash alone. Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014) (defining “payment” as the “performance of an obligation by the delivery of money or some other valuable thing accepted in partial or full discharge of the obligation” and “the money or other valuable thing so delivered in satisfaction of an obligation” (emphases added)). As the Third Circuit observed, [t]he thrust of the Court’s reasoning is not that it is problematic that money is used to effect an end to a patent challenge, but rather that the patentee leverages some part of its patent power ... to cause anticompetitive harm— namely, elimination of the risk of competition. King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388, 406 (3d Cir.2015); see also id. at 409 (<HOLDING>). Nor are we the first court to determine that
holding that an acceleration clause is not subject to antitrust scrutiny where plaintiffs conceded that they could be procompetitive in some circumstances but noting that noag clauses are subject to antitrust scrutiny holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny holding a mandatory sentence is still subject to constitutional scrutiny holding postactavis that a noag agreement is subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason