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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generic drug</span> 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 equivalent in performance compared to their performance at the time when they were patented drugs. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Research exemption</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

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.

Forest Laboratories was a company in the pharmaceutical industry incorporated in Delaware, with its principal office in New York City. It was known for licensing European pharmaceuticals for sale in the United States. On July 1, 2014, the company was acquired by Actavis.

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 had 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act</span> 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 established the modern system of generic drug regulation in the United States. The Act's two main goals are to facilitate entry of generic drugs into the market and to compensate the original drug developers for regulatory delays by the Food and Drug Administration. It is generally believed that the Act accomplished both goals: encouraging development of new medications and accelerating market entry of generics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apotex</span> Canadian pharmaceutical company

Apotex Inc. is a Canadian pharmaceutical corporation. Founded in 1974 by Barry Sherman, the company is the largest producer of generic drugs in Canada, with annual sales exceeding CA$2.5 billion. By 2023, Apotex employed close to 8,000 people as Canada's largest drug manufacturer, with over 300 products selling in over 115 countries. Apotex manufactures and distributes generic medications for a range of diseases and health conditions that include cancer, diabetes, high cholesterol, glaucoma, infections and blood pressure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teva Pharmaceuticals</span> Israeli pharmaceutical company

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company. Teva specializes primarily in generic drugs, but other business interests include branded-drugs, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API's) and, to a lesser extent, contract manufacturing services and an out-licensing platform.

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.

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 revenues from them. Often the practice includes taking out new patents, or by buying out or frustrating competitors, for longer periods of time than would normally be permissible under the law. Robin Feldman, a law professor at UC Law SF and a leading researcher in intellectual property and patents, defines evergreening as "artificially extending the life of a patent or other exclusivity by obtaining additional protections to extend the monopoly period."

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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP</span> Law firm

Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a litigation boutique located in San Francisco, California, founded in 1978. 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.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

An FDA citizen petition is a process provided by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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.

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.