FTC v Actavis ruling finds pay-to-delay may be anti-competitive
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

FTC v Actavis ruling finds pay-to-delay may be anti-competitive

Pharmaceutical companies can be sued for antitrust violations when a brand name drug company pays a generic rival to keep a copycat drug off the market, the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday

In their decision, the justices overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found that the payments are permissible provided they do not keep competitors off the market for longer than the term of the patent covering the drug.

The practice, known as a “reverse payment” or “pay-to-delay” deal, resulted from a loophole in the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act, which encouraged generic drug companies to sue to invalidate patents held by brand name rivals in an attempt to reduce the cost of medication.

SCOTUS justices

The dispute, Federal Trade Commission v Actavis, related to a brand name drug called AndroGel (testosterone gel), made by pharmaceutical company Solvay. Actavis and Paddock filed applications for generic rivals to AndroGel. Actavis and Paddock claimed Solvay’s patent was invalid and that their drugs did not infringe it. Solvay sued Actavis and Paddock for patent infringement.

After the FDA approved the generic version of the drug made by Actavis, Actavis entered into a reverse payment deal with Solvay, agreeing not to bring its producct to market for a specified period for a fee. Paddock and Par, a third manufacturer, made similar agreements with Solvay.

The FTC sued on antitrust grounds, but a district court dismissed the case. The FTC appealed, but the Eleventh Circuit concluded that as long as the anticompetitive effects of a settlement fall within the scope of the patent covering the drug, the deal is legal.

The Supreme Court threw out the appellate court’s ruling concerning the scope of the patent, but disagreed with the FTC’s claim that pay-to-delay deals should be assumed to be illegal, concluding that each one should be decided in court on its merits.

The Court split 6-3 in the decision. A strongly worded dissent, written by Chief Justice Roberts, said the majority opinion “departs from the settled approach separating patent and antitrust law, weakens the protections afforded to innovators by patents, frustrates the public policy in favor of settling, and likely undermines the very policy it seeks to promote by forcing generics who step into the litigation ring to do so without the prospect of cash settlements”.

Roberts said the correct approach would be simply to ask whether the settlement gives Solvay monopoly power beyond what the patent already gave it.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AI
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Counsel explain how pricing flexibility, patent agents and being business partners can help them maintain profitable patent prosecution practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Speakers at an INTA event weighed in on why firms should create AI use policies and how they stay on top of the latest developments
Gift this article