Reports say Justices on the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the pay-for-delay deals after Monday’s arguments, hinting that the Court may soon allow lawsuits against drugmakers for the agreements. Justice Elena Kagan stated that the agreements – in which brand name drugmakers pay for generic companies to keep their versions of drugs off shelves – act “to the detriment of consumers.” According to the Federal Trade Commission, 2012 yielded 40 pay-for-delay deals in the sector. Several companies have been sued for the deals, despite their argument that the agreements are valid patent settlements. Additionally, other Justices on Monday suggested they were disapproving of the FTC’s proposed method of determining whether the agreements hamper competition. Justice Anthony Kennedy said that a possible result could be banning brand name drugmakers from paying generic companies more than those companies would expect to be paid from winning patent lawsuits if brand name companies were to sue.
Featured News
Carey Bolsters Competition Law Team With New Senior Counsel
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
TikTok US Sale Could Deliver $10 Billion Windfall to the United States
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
States Press Ahead With Live Nation Antitrust Trial After Federal Settlement
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
US Pulls Back Draft Regulation Targeting Global AI Chip Shipments
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
Selecta and Bondholders Ask US Court to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit Over Creditor Pact
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece