FTC v. Actavis: "Reverse Payments"—Not Presumptively Lawful, Not Presumptively Unlawful, But Subject to a Rule-of-Reason Analysis

by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

On June 17, 2013, after years of litigation in the lower courts, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in FTC v. Actavis.1 The 5-3 decision,2 however, did not have a clear winner, and the case was remanded to the district court for yet more litigation. The Eleventh Circuit had upheld a district court holding that, as long as the anticompetitive effects of a settlement fall "within the scope of the patent," the settlement is immune from antitrust attack. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court declined to hold that "reverse payments"3 are presumptively unlawful, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had argued. But the Court agreed that reverse payments can sometimes violate the antitrust laws and ruled that they should be examined under the "rule of reason."

Case Background

This case arose out of a 2006 settlement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals, a patent holder on AndroGel—a prescription gel used to increase testosterone levels in male patients—and three competing drug manufacturers seeking to offer a generic alternative to AndroGel.4 Pursuant to the settlement, Solvay agreed to drop its patent infringement actions and its would-be competitors agreed not to market a generic version of AndroGel until 2015 (65 months before Solvay's patent expired). In addition, Solvay entered into separate agreements with each of the three generic manufacturers, providing that they would market branded AndroGel to urologists in exchange for a share of the profits collected by Solvay—$12 million to one manufacturer; $60 million to another; and $19-30 million annually, for nine years, to the third.5

In 2009, the FTC filed a lawsuit against all settling parties, alleging that this "reverse payment" settlement ran afoul of the antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the FTC's suit, noting that where patent settlements are concerned, neither the "rule of reason" nor "per se" analyses typically applied in antitrust actions are appropriate. Rather, the court held that reverse settlements must be analyzed according to the three-part test established by the Eleventh Circuit: (1) the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent; (2) the extent to which the agreements exceed that scope; and (3) the resulting anticompetitive effects. The district court held that there was no need to reach the question of whether the agreements at issue resulted in anticompetitive effects because the plaintiffs had failed to allege that such agreements exceeded the scope of Solvay's patent. The FTC appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal and, following its own precedents, held that "absent sham litigation or fraud in obtaining the patent, a reverse payment settlement is immune from antitrust attack so long as its anticompetitive effects fall within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent."6 Several other circuit courts had ruled on the issue, at times reaching opposite decisions,7 leading the Supreme Court to take the case for review.

Majority Decision

While the Supreme Court acknowledged that the payment itself can fall within the scope of a patent, it disagreed that that fact alone could immunize the agreement from antitrust scrutiny.8 Instead, the Court indicated that both patent and antitrust policies are "relevant in determining the 'scope of the patent monopoly'—and consequently antitrust law immunity—that is conferred by a patent."9

The Supreme Court considered the following five factors and concluded that the FTC should have been given an opportunity to prove its case:

  1. sometimes patent settlements will have "genuine adverse effects on competition";
  2. "these anticompetitive consequences will at least sometimes prove unjustified";
  3. "where a reverse payment threatens to work unjustified anticompetitive harm, the patentee likely possesses the power to bring that harm about in practice";
  4. "it is normally not necessary to litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question" because "[a]n unexplained large reverse payment itself would normally suggest that the patentee has serious doubts about the patent's survival," and using a "payment . . . to prevent the risk of competition . . . constitutes the relevant anticompetitive harm"; and
  5. parties may still "settle in other ways" such as "by allowing the generic manufacturer to enter the patentee's market prior to the patent's expiration, without the patentee paying the challenger to stay out prior to that point."10

While explaining in detail why antitrust policies should be considered as part of the patent settlement analyses, the Court did not specify the precise framework for evaluating such agreements, and instead left "to the lower courts the structuring of the present rule-of-reason."11 Generally, the Court stated, rather than mechanically measuring the length or amount of a restriction solely against the length of the patent's term or its earning potential (as was the case in the Eleventh Circuit), courts should answer the antitrust question by considering traditional antitrust factors such as likely anticompetitive effects, redeeming virtues, market power, and potentially offsetting legal considerations present in the circumstances, such as those related to patents here. The only more specific guidance appears to be that payments of "large" sums are suspect:

  • "The payment may instead provide strong evidence that the patentee seeks to induce the generic challenger to abandon its claim with a share of its monopoly profits that would otherwise be lost in the competitive market."12
  • "The 'size of the payment from a branded drug manufacturer to a prospective generic is itself a strong indicator of power'—namely, the power to charge prices higher than the competitive level."13
  • "An unexplained large reverse payment itself would normally suggest that the patentee has serious doubts about the patent's survival."14
  • "In a word, the size of the unexplained reverse payment can provide a workable surrogate for a patent's weakness, all without forcing a court to conduct a detailed exploration of the validity of the patent itself."15

The Court did not comment on the impact of price effects. Going forward, the FTC and other plaintiffs are sure to argue that delay of generic entry raises prices to consumers, and that the presence of that effect establishes a prima facie case sufficient to shift the burden of going forward to the defense to present evidence of justifications for the settlement. It remains to be seen how the courts will deal with this argument.

Dissent's Concerns

Chief Justice John Roberts, however, writing for the dissenting minority, took issue with the majority's focus on the assumption that offering a "large" sum is reliable evidence that the patent holder has serious doubts about the patent. The minority argued that a patent holder may be very sure about the validity of its patent, but could just be particularly averse to risk or litigation.

Additionally, according to Chief Justice Roberts, the true motivation of a patent holder to enter into a settlement agreement would be hard to ascertain. Specifically, "whether a patent holder is motivated by uncertainty about its patent, or other legitimate factors like risk aversion, will be made all the more difficult by the fact that much of the evidence about the party's motivation may be embedded in legal advice from its attorney, which would presumably be shielded from discovery."16


In the meantime, both camps claimed a measured victory from the decision.

FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez claimed the Supreme Court's "decision is a significant victory for American consumers, American taxpayers, and free markets."17 The FTC issued a statement praising the Court for making "it clear that pay-for-delay agreements between brand and generic drug companies are subject to antitrust scrutiny, and it has rejected the attempt by branded and generic companies to effectively immunize these agreements from the antitrust laws."18

At the same time, Paul Bisaro, president and CEO of Actavis, issued a similar statement on behalf of Actavis: "We are pleased that the Court rejected the FTC's proposed 'quick look' test, and did not rule that settlement agreements are presumptively unlawful. . . . We believe this decision continues to provide for a lawful and legitimate pathway for resolving patent challenge litigation in a manner that is pro-competitive and beneficial to American consumers. . . . We plan to continue to defend the propriety of such settlements against any further legislative or judicial challenges."19 Left unsaid is another aspect in which the decision is somewhat helpful to pharmaceutical companies. Had the FTC lost in the Supreme Court, there would have been considerable pressure for congressional legislation—legislation that, if passed, likely would have included the rule of presumptive illegality that the FTC has championed. That almost certainly will not happen now.

In the end, however, the Supreme Court's decision is a clear win for the FTC. How significant a win it is will play out as the lower courts develop a rule-of-reason approach to these cases in the coming years. The decision represents the culmination, at least for now, of the FTC's 15-year campaign against reverse settlements. The "scope of the patent" doctrine had been adopted both by the Eleventh Circuit and the Second Circuit and, because companies can appeal a final FTC decision to any circuit in which they do business, the rulings from those courts threatened to gut the FTC's approach completely. Instead, the cases now will proceed.

1 FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416, 570 U. S. ____ (June 17, 2013), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-416_m5n0.pdf.

2 Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

3 When the settlement requires the patentee to pay the alleged infringer, rather than the other way around, this kind of settlement agreement is often called a "reverse payment" settlement agreement.

4 In re AndroGel Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 2010).

5 See FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416, 570 U. S. ____, at 6 (majority opinion).

6 FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F. 3d 1298, 1312 (CA 11 2012).

7 Compare, e.g., id., at 1312 (case below) (settlements generally "immune from antitrust attack"); In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F. 3d 1323, 1332-1337 (CA Fed. 2008) (similar); In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 466 F. 3d 187, 212-213 (CA2 2006) (similar), with In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F. 3d 197, 214-218 (CA3 2012) (settlements presumptively unlawful).

8 FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416, 570 U. S. ____, at 8 (majority opinion).

9 Id. at 9.

10 Id. at 14-19.

11 Id. at 21.

12 Id. at 15-16.

13 Id. at 18.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 19.

16 FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416, 570 U. S. ____, at 13 (dissent).

17 FTC Press Release, Statement of FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez on the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (June 17, 2013), http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/06/actavis.shtm.

18 Id.

19 Actavis Press Release, U.S. Supreme Court Reverses U.S. Court of Appeals Decision in FTC v. Actavis (June 17, 2013), http://ir.actavis.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65778&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1830404.

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.

© Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 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.