FTC Report Tallies Hatch-Waxman Settlements in First Full Year After Actavis

by Pepper Hamilton LLP

On January 13, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) released an overview of the pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the Commission in Fiscal Year 2014 (October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014). The FTC has published similar reports annually since the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which requires parties that settle patent infringement litigation brought pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act to file copies of their agreements with the FTC and the Department of Justice. The FTC’s latest report reflects the second full year of agreements following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s decision in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012), and the first full year of agreements following the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2233 (2013).

Reports before FY 2013 predominantly reflected settlement practices under the “scope of the patent test,” the once-prevailing standard for evaluating Hatch-Waxman settlements. Under the scope of the patent test, a settlement containing a “reverse payment” from the patent holder to the alleged infringer does not warrant antitrust scrutiny so long as the settlement’s exclusionary scope is no greater than that created by the patent in dispute. In K-Dur, the Third Circuit broke with the other courts of appeal, rejecting the scope of the patent test and holding that any reverse payment accompanied by delayed generic entry should be treated as prima facie evidence of an unreasonable trade restraint and reviewed under a quick look test. Then, less than one year later, in Actavis, the Supreme Court rejected both the quick look test and the scope of the patent test, holding that where a plaintiff alleges a large and otherwise unjustified reverse payment, the settlement should be reviewed under the traditional rule of reason analysis.

According to the FTC report, Hatch-Waxman litigants filed 160 final settlements with the FTC in FY 2014. This number is a slight increase compared to the number of final settlements filed in fiscal years 2013 (145), 2012 (140) and 2011 (156). However, the Commission does not report whether the total number of Hatch-Waxman cases has changed over time, so it is unclear whether the percentage of patent infringement cases that ultimately settle has changed. Of the 160 reported settlements, the FTC reports that 21 “potentially involve pay for delay.”1 For another eight, the FTC said it was “not clear from the face of each settlement agreement whether certain provisions act as compensation to the generic patent challenger.” The remaining 131 agreements, according to the Commission, involved no payment from the patent holder to the alleged infringer: 20 allowed immediate generic entry and 111 allowed generic entry at a later agreed-upon entry date, but involved no compensation to the generic.

Much like the FTC’s report last year, the FY 2014 report sheds little light on the Commission’s view regarding the scope of appropriate antitrust scrutiny for reverse payment settlements. The report makes it clear that the FTC believes at least some level of review should occur when the agreement involves a side business deal, precludes the brand from competing during the term of an early entry license (e.g., a so-called “no authorized generic” agreement), or includes a cash payment. What is not clear is whether, in the Commission’s opinion, all agreements involving cash payments or side business deals “potentially involve pay for delay,” or whether (or when) it believes license terms other than exclusivity (e.g., supply arrangements and royalty payments) merit antitrust review. For example, for the second straight year, the FTC classified an agreement in which the generic’s obligation to pay royalties was reduced or eliminated if the brand company launched an authorized generic as an agreement where it was “not clear” whether there was a reverse payment. The report does not elaborate on any other agreements the FTC deemed difficult to classify.

From the FTC’s perspective, the number of “potential” reverse payment settlements has substantially declined. The 21 potential reverse payment agreements reported in FY 2014 is the lowest since FY 2009, and the percentage of final settlements that the FTC deemed potential reverse payment settlements is the lowest since FY 2005. Also, the number of “potential” reverse payment deals involving first filers, which in the Commission’s view present special concern because of the potential to block other generic entry, was the lowest since FY 2007 and the lowest as a percentage of final settlements since FY 2005.

The FTC’s report suggests that litigants not only have attempted to avoid potential reverse payments entirely, but also have shifted the types of consideration exchanged in Hatch-Waxman settlements. For example, nine of the FTC’s 21 “potential pay-for-delay” settlements included compensation solely in the form of a cash payment of less than $5 million, purportedly to cover litigation fees. The prevalence of such payments accords with the Actavis Court’s express endorsement of settlements reflecting avoided litigation costs. Similarly, the Supreme Court suggested that a fair value payment for services rendered would be deemed “justified,” and six of the FTC’s 21 “potential pay-for-delay” settlements involved compensation in the form of a side business deal.

The FTC reported fewer agreements — five in FY 2014 and four in FY 2013, compared to 19 and 11 in FY 2012 and FY 2011, respectively — in which the Hatch-Waxman litigants agreed to an exclusivity term that barred the brand manufacturer from marketing an authorized generic in competition with the generic manufacturer’s product. Migration away from this license term is not surprising, given the FTC’s well-publicized position that such exclusive licenses are a form of reverse payment. The Third Circuit’s decision in June 2015 that such settlements are subject to rule of reason review2 may push the number of agreements involving exclusive licenses even lower in the FTC’s next report.

Followers of Hatch-Waxman litigation will eagerly await the FTC’s FY 2015 report to see how ongoing litigation over the definition of “payment,” and the several cases expected to be reviewed by circuit courts of appeal this year, will affect these trends.



1 The 21 agreements involve 20 different branded pharmaceutical products, with combined annual U.S. sales of about $6.2 billion.

2 King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2015).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pepper Hamilton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.