Reverse payment patent settlement

Last updated

Reverse payment patent settlements, also known as "pay-for-delay" agreements, [1] are a type of agreement that has been used to settle pharmaceutical patent infringement litigation (or threatened litigation), in which the company that has brought the suit agrees to pay the company it sued. That is, the patent holder pays the alleged infringer to stop its alleged infringing activity (e.g., to stop selling a generic version of a drug) for some period of time and to stop disputing the validity of the patent. These agreements are distinct from most patent settlements, which usually involve the alleged infringer paying the patent holder. [2] [3]

Reverse payment patent settlements result from a peculiarity in US regulatory law arising from the Hatch-Waxman Act passed in 1984. The law encourages patent infringement litigation with incentives outside the patent system. [4] Under the Act, the first generic company to successfully challenge the patents of the innovative company, and that has its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) accepted by the FDA, is awarded with six months of exclusivity. During that time that FDA is not allowed to approve any other company's ANDA, and only the originator company and the winning generics company can market the drug. Because of the lack of competition, the price that the generic company can charge during this period is much higher than it eventually will be when other generic companies are allowed to sell the drug as well. [4] [5] In settling the litigation, the generics company can calculate the income it would get due to that 6 month administrative exclusivity, and the innovator can calculate the amount of money it would lose from sales to the generic company. The parties might agree that a cash payment from the innovator to the generic company is an arrangement in which both parties benefit more than they would if the litigation were to continue. [4] [6]

The settlements have been criticized as anti-competitive, thus violating United States antitrust law, and acting against the public interest, principally because they frustrate the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Act was intended to increase competition and provide incentives to the entry of generic medications. [6] [7]

The first ruling by the US Supreme Court in relation to reverse payment settlements came in 2013, in which the Court ruled that the "Federal Trade Commission can sue pharmaceutical companies for potential antitrust violations" in the face of such settlements. [8] [9] Following that case, which involved Solvay Pharmaceutical's drug AndroGel and a reverse payment settlement between Solvay and Actavis, the number of academic papers about reverse payment patent settlement greatly increased. [10] In 2019, Teva Pharmaceuticals was induced to pay the state of California $69 million to settle pay-for-delay claims; two other companies, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Pharma, also settled for similar violations. [11]

Related Research Articles

Generic drug Pharmaceutical equivalent to a brand-name product

A generic drug is a pharmaceutical drug that contains the same chemical substance as a drug that was originally protected by chemical patents. Generic drugs are allowed for sale after the patents on the original drugs expire. Because the active chemical substance is the same, the medical profile of generics is believed to be equivalent in performance. A generic drug has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) as the original, but it may differ in some characteristics such as the manufacturing process, formulation, excipients, color, taste, and packaging.

In United States patent law, patent misuse is a patent holder's use of a patent to restrain trade beyond enforcing the exclusive rights that a lawfully obtained patent provides. If a court finds that a patent holder committed patent misuse, the court may rule that the patent holder has lost the right to enforce the patent. Patent misuse that restrains economic competition substantially can also violate United States antitrust law.

Research exemption

In patent law, the research exemption or safe harbor exemption is an exemption to the rights conferred by patents, which is especially relevant to drugs. According to this exemption, despite the patent rights, performing research and tests for preparing regulatory approval, for instance by the FDA in the United States, does not constitute infringement for a limited term before the end of patent term. This exemption allows generic manufacturers to prepare generic drugs in advance of the patent expiration.

In terrorem, Latin for "into/about fear", is a legal threat, usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Kaye Scholer was a law firm founded in 1917 by Benjamin Kaye and Jacob Scholer. The firm has more than 450 attorneys in nine offices located in the cities of Chicago, Frankfurt, London, Los Angeles, New York City (headquarters), Shanghai, Palo Alto, Washington, D.C., and West Palm Beach.

Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act US law

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, is a 1984 United States federal law that encourages the manufacture of generic drugs by the pharmaceutical industry and established the modern system of government generic drug regulation in the United States. Representative Henry Waxman of California and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah sponsored the act.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should issue.

Teva Pharmaceuticals Israeli pharmaceutical company

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., also known as Teva Pharmaceuticals, is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company with headquarters in Petah Tikva, Israel. It specializes primarily in generic drugs, but other business interests include active pharmaceutical ingredients and, to a lesser extent, proprietary pharmaceuticals. Until 2020, Teva Pharmaceuticals was the largest generic drug manufacturer, when it was surpassed by US-based Pfizer. Teva is the overall eighteenth largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858, was a court case in the United States related to the manufacturing of generic pharmaceuticals.

Lori Swanson

Lori Swanson is an American lawyer and politician who served as the Attorney General of Minnesota from 2007 to 2019. She was the first female Attorney General elected in Minnesota. In 2018, she ran for Governor of Minnesota with running mate U.S. Representative Rick Nolan finishing in third place in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor primary.

Evergreening is any of various legal, business and technological strategies by which producers extend the lifetime of their patents that are about to expire, in order to retain royalties from them, by either taking out new patents, or by buying out, or frustrating competitors, for longer periods of time than would normally be permissible under the law.

United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, "[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies."

Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP law firm

Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a premier litigation boutique located in San Francisco, California, founded in 1978. Keker, Van Nest & Peters has tried and litigated complex, high-stakes civil and criminal cases throughout the nation. The firm's areas of practice include intellectual property, professional liability, class actions, wrongful termination defense, general contract and commercial litigation, antitrust, white collar crime, and appellate.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that generic drug manufactures cannot be held liable under state law for not adequately labeling medication when federal law prohibits them from changing the label from the original brand name drug.

An FDA citizen petition is a process provided by the United States Food and Drug Administration for individuals and community organizations to make requests to the FDA for changes to health policy. It is described in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Restasis patent

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322 is a United States Patent case, decided by the CAFC, deciding whether or not indigenous tribes' sovereign immunity extended to patent lawsuits. In September 2017, the American pharmaceutical company Allergan agreed to transfer six pharmaceutical patents for the ophthalmic form of the drug Restasis to the St. Regis tribe of the Mohawk people. At the time, the St. Regis tribe viewed this blockbuster deal as a new, viable supply of income outside of their primary source, the gambling industry. Following the deal, Allergan received an onslaught of criticism from outside companies and politicians such as Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who said that the deal, "'impair[s] competition across the pharmaceutical industry.'"

References

  1. ↑ "Merck to SCOTUS: Hatch-Waxman is to blame for pay-for-delay deals". Thomson Reuters News & Insight. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
  2. ↑ Dennis Crouch (January 10, 2011). "Reverse Payment Settlements Return to the Supreme Court". Patently-O.
  3. ↑ "Supreme Court may decide whether "reverse payment" settlements violate antitrust law". Inside Counsel. August 15, 2012.
  4. 1 2 3 "RL32377: The Hatch-Waxman Act: Legislative Changes in the 108th Congress Affecting Pharmaceutical Patents" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. April 30, 2004.
  5. ↑ Boehm, Garth; Yao, Lixin; Han, Liang; Zheng, Qiang (September 2013). "Development of the generic drug industry in the US after the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984". Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B. 3 (5): 297–311. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2013.07.004 .
  6. 1 2 Wang, Zhenghui (July 2014). "Reanalyzing Reverse-Payment Settlements: A Solution to the Patentee 's Dilemma". Cornell Law Review. 99 (5): 1227–1258. PMID   25112001.
  7. ↑ Mark Lemley; et al. "Amicus Brief of 86 Law Professors" (PDF). Retrieved 29 September 2012.
  8. ↑ Wyatt, Edward (17 June 2013). "Supreme Court Lets Regulators Sue Over Generic Drug Deals". New York Times . Retrieved 9 May 2015.
  9. ↑ Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., et al., 570 (U.S.17 June 2013).
  10. ↑ Schrepel, Thibault (3 February 2014). "Reverse payment settlement: statistical comparison between cases and research papers". Le Concurrentialiste (blog). Retrieved 8 May 2015– via WordPress.
  11. ↑ "Three drugmakers settle with California over deals to keep generic medications off the market". 29 July 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.