Originally Published in Competition Law360
Last month, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review to consider the legality of “pay-for-delay” agreements. Under these agreements, also referred to as “reverse payment settlements,” a branded drug maker pays manufacturers of generic versions of the branded drug to abandon a patent challenge and delay offering the generic versions on the market.
Overview of the Circuit Split
There is currently a split among the federal courts of appeal over the legality of pay-for-delay agreements under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sixth Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit fall in the first camp: Pay-for-delay agreements are per se unlawful under the Sherman Act because they are horizontal agreements with the purpose of eliminating competition. See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003); In re Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp., Int’l, 256 F.3d 799 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Second, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits fall in the second camp: Pay-for-delay agreements are neither per se unlawful nor unreasonable restraints on competition if they fall within the exclusionary scope of the patent. See Ark. Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, 604 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2010); In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2006); Schering-Plough Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005); Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms, Inc., 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003).
Please see full article below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.