reverse payments under the Watson and Lupin Agreements, given their complexity. On this, the parties seem to agree that the Court must look at each component of the two deals, as well as each settlement agreement as a whole, to determine whether plausible claims have been set forth that the Watson and Lupin Agreements, constitute large and unjustified reverse payments. -This is well supported by the case law. On the one hand, there is support for analyzing each component of a complex, non-cash reverse payment settlement to determine whether it is cognizable under Actavis. See, e.g„ In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litig., No, 13-CV-9244 (RA), 2015 WL 5610752, at *12-13, 18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) (“Actos”), affd in part, vacated in part on other grounds 848 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>), Indeed, the First Circuit, in the instant
holding a mandatory sentence is still subject to constitutional 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 postactavis that a noag agreement is subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit 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