Last Thursday the Supreme Court of California decided in the Cipro ase , holding that reverse payment, or “pay-for-delay,” settlements can be challenged as unreasonable restraints on trade.
In so doing, it followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis. But the California court went a step further. It laid out a “structured rule of reason” test for assessing when pay-for-delay settlements are anticompetitive.
Reverse payment settlements are used to dispose of challenges brought by would-be generic manufacturers against brand manufacturers who hold pharmaceutical patents. Instead of fighting the suit, the patentee pays the generic manufacturer to drop the patent challenge. In exchange, the generic manufacturer agrees that the patentee can continue marketing the brand drug for a period of time. The patentee pays, and the generic manufacturer delays its attempted entry into the market.
The risk of these settlements is that a patentee may be using monopoly profits to avoid the risk that its patent will be held to be invalid or not infringed.
The Cipro court went further, crafting a “structured rule of reason” test for determining when a pay-for-delay suit imposed an unreasonable restraint on trade – a question the Supreme Court expressly left open.
Full content: Law.com
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Pork Industry Faces Legal Challenges as Antitrust Lawsuits Against Seaboard Foods Dismissed
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
CMA Strengthens Investigation with Advisory Panel of Veterinary Experts
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
US Merchants Sue Visa, Alleging Unfair Dominance in Debit Card Market
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
European Commission Appoints New Chief Competition Economist
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
EU Commission Requests Information from YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok on Algorithm Usage
Oct 2, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh