The US Federal Trade Commission submitted a proposed amicus brief regarding a patent settlement case in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey that includes a “no-authorized-generic” commitment.
The FTC is now asking the judge in the case, In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation, to accept the amicus brief that, according to an FTC press release, involves the application of the Supreme Court’s recent pay-for-delay ruling to the settlement.
In the case of Effexor XR, the plaintiffs challenged the patent settlement agreement between Wyeth and Teva Pharmaceuticals due to the no-authorized-generic agreement the two had made. The press release offered by the FTC Monday explained that such a no-authorized-generic commitment means that a brand name drug company has agreed to not launch its own generic alternative when a competing generic drug maker launches its own. But a study spearheaded by the FTC found that such agreements lead to higher revenues for the generic drug maker, “and consumers pay higher prices for the generic product.”
It’s a case similar to so-called pay-for-delay, in which a brand name pharmaceutical company pays a generic drug maker to keep its competition off the shelves; the Supreme Court ruled in FTC v. Actavis that such agreements can be subject to legal scrutiny. According to the FTC, the watchdog’s amicus brief says that the settlement in the New Jersey case presents “an issue with significant implications for American consumers,” and that the no-authorized-generic commitment “raise[s] the same type of antitrust concern that the Supreme Court identified in Actavis.”
The regulator voted 4-0 in favor of approving the amicus brief, which was submitted to the court on August 14 of this year. A decision on whether the FTC is to participate as amicus is expected next month, said the press release.
Full Content: Fierce Pharma
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
FTC Chair Proposes 15% Staff Reduction Amid Budget Constraints
May 15, 2025 by
CPI
UK Urges Antitrust Watchdog to Prioritize Growth and Clarity in Business Regulation
May 15, 2025 by
CPI
Athletes File New Objections to NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement Proposal
May 15, 2025 by
CPI
TikTok Charged by EU Over Alleged Breach of Digital Services Act
May 15, 2025 by
CPI
House Budget Bill’s Moratorium on State AI Laws Could Undo A Range of Tech Regs, Critics Say
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Healthcare Antitrust
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Healthcare & Antitrust: What to Expect in the New Trump Administration
May 14, 2025 by
Nana Wilberforce, John W O'Toole & Sarah Pugh
Patent Gaming and Disparagement: Commission Fines Teva For Improperly Protecting Its Blockbuster Medicine
May 14, 2025 by
Blaž Višnar, Boris Andrejaš, Apostolos Baltzopoulos, Rieke Kaup, Laura Nistor & Gianluca Vassallo
Strategic Alliances in the Pharma Sector: An EU Competition Law Perspective
May 14, 2025 by
Christian Ritz & Benedikt Weiss
Monopsony Power in the Hospital Labor Market
May 14, 2025 by
Kevin E. Pflum & Christian Salas