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 2025

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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article