Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Supreme Court hears arguments in FTC v Actavis


Supreme Court justices seemed divided on Monday over the legality of pharmaceutical companies paying generic rivals to keep cheaper alternatives to brand name drugs off the market.


In Federal Trade Commission v Actavis, the justices heard oral arguments concerning the legality of so-called reverse payment agreements.

The case concerns a fee paid to Actavis by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, which owns a patent on testosterone-raising drug AndroGel. In exchange, Actavis agreed not to produce a generic version of AndroGel for an agreed period.

The FTC claimed the agreement amounted to illegal collusion. Actavis argued that such payments are legal provided the generic company’s delay in producing the drug is limited to the period in which the patent is valid.

But the justices seemed more concerned with the economic impact of the deals.

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that reverse payments should not exceed what the generic company could make by launching a competing drug, while Justice Elena Kagan said the companies involved were harming consumers by “splitting monopoly profits”.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to attribute the situation to a loophole in the Hatch-Waxman laws, and questioned why the court should correct a “mistake” made by Congress.

The case was previously referred to as Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals et. Al, before the combination of Actavis and Watson.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required
The Federal Circuit will also narrow its investigation into Judge Newman to focus on whether her failure to cooperate constitutes misconduct
The management board will send three names to the Council of the EU for a final decision
Sources say a decision by the IP High Court will make it easier for rights owners to fight infringement
Seán Kelly asked the European Commission how it intends to ensure the EUIPO executive director vote, due tomorrow, will be fair and transparent
Counsel from BMW and Finnegan explain how they got an NPE to sign a covenant agreeing not to sue the automaker ever again
The blue checkmark could be a good tool, but it’s unclear how widespread its adoption will be, say in-house sources
Sarah Harris, partner at Williams & Connolly, reveals how her team secured a copyright victory at SCOTUS and reflects on why the case matters
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A Court of Appeal judge demanded respect for solicitor-judges after reprimanding a barrister for his 'unwise' words