Opinion ID: 76321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: 24 On appeal, Abbott and Geneva argue that the district court erred in concluding that the Agreements were per se violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act and that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. 25 Appellants argue that courts lack sufficient experience with agreements of the kind at issue to draw the conclusion that history and analysis have shown that in sufficiently similar circumstances the rule of reason unequivocally results in a finding of liability. Seagood Trading Corp. v. Jerrico, Inc., 924 F.2d 1555, 1567 (11th Cir.1991) (quotation and citation omitted). Appellants also argue that there are pro-competitive justifications for the Agreements that warrant analysis under the rule of reason. Appellants argue that genuine issues of material fact are in dispute with regard to these potential pro-competitive effects. Finally, Appellants argue that the Agreements are patent litigation settlements that must be analyzed under the rule of reason unless it is shown that the settlements were sham. 15