; or (ii) the procompetitive benefits of the agreement outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the agreement. (b) Limitations In determining whether the settling parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the fact finder may not presume— (1) that entry of the ANDA product into interstate commerce would not have occurred until the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity; or (2) that the agreement’s provision for entry of the ANDA product into interstate commerce prior to the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity means that the agreement is procompetitive. (c) Exclusions Nothing in this section shall prohibit a resolution or settlement of a patent infringement claim in which the consideration granted to the ANDA filer as part of the resolution or settlement includes one or more of the following and nothing else: (1) The right to market the ANDA product in the United States prior to the expiration of— (A) any patent that is the basis for the patent infringement claim; or (B) any patent right or other statutory exclusivity that would prevent the marketing of such drug. (2) A payment, not to exceed $7,500,000, if based on reasonable litigation expenses. (3) A covenant not to sue (including any agreement to dismiss) on any claim that the ANDA product infringes a United States patent. (d) Judicial review (1) In general Any party that is subject to a final order of the Commission, issued in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), may, within 30 days after the issuance of such order, petition for review of such order in— (A) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit