FTC changes premerger notification rules for drug patents

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

FTC changes premerger notification rules for drug patents

The FTC has issued final changes to the premerger notification rules governing how pharmaceutical companies must report the acquisition of exclusive patent rights to the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ)

Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act, drug companies must report certain mergers and acquisitions of assets, including patents and exclusive patent licences, over a certain amount to the FTC and DOJ. The current threshold is $70.9 million.

The change will revoke the existing “make, use and sell” standard governing which licences are reportable. Under the current rules, companies are only required to report transfers of patent licences if they allow the buyer to develop, manufacture and sell a product without restriction.

Under the new rules, pharmaceutical companies will have to report transfers falling under the scope of the more stringent “all commercially significant rights” test.

According to the FTC, this will mean that “an exclusive license is substantively the same as buying the patent or part of the patent outright, and carries the same potential anticompetitive effects".

The FTC claims the “make, use and sell” test is “no longer adequate” because some drugs companies were transferring most but not all of the rights under a licence in order to avoid the reporting requirement.

The FTC received four public comments on the rule, including an objection to it from industry organisation Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

The new rules will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article