SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Guest Post: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in reverse payments case

Posted on 5:17 PM by Unknown


The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the legality of reverse payment settlements in the pharmaceutical sector, where a patent holder would pay a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer to delay or withdraw any challenges to patent validity. Given the increasing number of reverse payment settlements, the final holding of the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have a significant impact on competition in the pharmaceutical industry. 

We have for our readers a guest post on this topic and the hearing before the Supreme Court, by Mr. George Yu, an experienced patent litigation lawyer at Schiff Hardin LLP. Mr. Yu’s practice focuses on patent infringement litigation and intellectual property counseling. Mr. Yu’s strong background in biochemistry and molecular biology enhance his experience in handling patent litigations involving complex pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technology products. Prior to joining Schiff Hardin, Mr. Yu was Assistant General Counsel, Litigation for Affymetrix, Inc., the first company to commercialize DNA microarrays.

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc:  A Quick Look into Reverse Payments
by 
George Yu

The name of the game in the pharmaceutical industry is exclusivity.  According to Drugs.com, sales in the US for a blockbuster drug like Lipitor® can go from nearly $2 billion a quarter to less than $200M a quarter less than a year after the introduction of a generic version of the drug.  (See www.drugs.com.)  On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argumentin Fair Trade Commission v. Actavis (12-416) regarding one of the strategies used by drug companies to extend their exclusivity, the so-called “reverse payment settlement.” 

The party wishing to practice a patent in the typical patent licensing scenario provides a payment or other consideration to the patentee in exchange for a promise by the patentee not to sue for infringement.  In the pharmaceutical industry, the branded pharmaceutical company that owns a patent covering a drug sometimes will pay a generic drug company that has filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to delay the entry of a competing product and withdraw challenges to the validity of the patent.  These reverse payment or “pay-for-delay” settlements have become more common in recent years and have been challenged by the Fair Trade Commission (FTC), pharmaceutical wholesalers, and pharmacies as anticompetitive.  The FTC estimated in 2010 that reverse payment settlements in the pharmaceutical industry cost U.S. consumers $3.5 billion annually.  The FTC published another reportat the beginning of this year indicating an increase in reverse payment settlements.

Actavis and the “scope of the patent” test

As discussed in the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the reverse payment settlement in Actavis relates to a patent set to expire in 2020 covering a formulation of AndroGel®, a topical gel that treats the symptoms of low testosterone in men.  Sales of AndroGel® generated revenue in excess of $1.8 billion between 2000 and 2007.  Two drug companies filed ANDAs to market generic versions of AndroGel®, leading to patent litigation between the marketer of AndroGel® and the generic competitors.  The generic drug companies estimated that the generic version would sell at 25% of the price of AndroGel® and decrease sales of AndroGel® by 90%.

In 2006, after the lifting of the 30-month stay when the litigation was still ongoing, the parties reached a settlement under which the defendants agreed not market a generic version of AndroGel® until August 31, 2015.  During the nine years of AndroGel® exclusivity, the generic drug companies would receive a total of $29-40 million per year.  As required by statute, the parties reported their settlement to the FTC.

The FTC then filed suit against the settling parties alleging that the reverse payment settlements were unlawful agreements not to compete.  The FTC asserted that the patentee was not likely to prevail in the infringement actions because of the persuasive arguments regarding the invalidity and noninfringement of the asserted patent.  The FTC argued that because the AndroGel® patent “was unlikely to prevent generic entry,” the reverse payments extended an unauthorized monopoly.

The district court dismissed the FTC’s complaint based on Eleventh Circuit precedent because the FTC did not allege that the settlement imposed a greater exclusion than that provided by the patent itself.  The FTC appealed, challenging the “scope of the patent” test for anticompetitive behavior.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and the FTC petitionedthe Supreme Court for review.  The briefs, including a number of amicus curiae briefs, can be found here, including a brieffrom one of the co-sponsors of the Hatch-Waxman amendments, Rep. Henry Waxman.

K-Dur and the “quick look” test

Shortly after the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Actavis, the Third Circuit considered a similar appeal and reached a different result based on a different legal test.  The In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation appeal related to the settlement of patent litigations involving patents covering a controlled-release microencapsulated potassium chloride formulation.  One settlement required the generic drug company to delay entry of its product of four years for a payment of $60 million.  But the settlement also included a cross-license to certain patents owned by the generic drug company.

Despite the branded and generic drug companies’ argument that the payment related to the licensing of patents not involved in the litigation, the Third Circuit found that there was a reverse payment.  After reviewing the precedent from other circuits, the K-Dur panel rejected the scope of the patent test because reverse payments “permit the sharing of monopoly rents between would-be competitors without any assurance that the underlying patent is valid.”  Instead, the Third Circuit held that courts should apply a “quick look rule of reason” analysis, which shifts the burden to defendants to provide evidence that per se illegal behavior had an economic justification.  Under those circumstances, defendants in quick look situations have only rarely been able to provide the justification necessary to avoid antitrust liability.
The K-Dur defendants also petitioned for review by the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on their petition.

The Oral Argument in actavis

Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, arguedon behalf of the Government, while Jeffrey Weinberger argued on behalf of the respondent pharmaceutical companies.  Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the proceedings.  Thus, a 4-4 decision, which would uphold the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that the settlements are lawful, is possible.

Shortly after Mr. Stewart began his argument in support of the quick look test, Justice Scalia challenged him to identify “a case in which the patentee acting within the scope of the patent has nonetheless been held liable under the antitrust laws.”  Justice Kennedy indicated his concern that the quick look test makes no attempt to distinguish between weak patents and strong patents because settlements involving either would be presumptively unlawful.  Justice Breyer, on the other hand, asked why the Government would not be satisfied with an acknowledgement that reverse payment settlements sometimes have anticompetitive effects and should be subject to the standard rule of reason analysis without a presumption for or against legality.  Mr. Stewart responded that such an approach would bring in the “kitchen sink”—i.e., unnecessarily complicate the analysis.

For respondents, Mr. Weinberger responded to the question posed by Justice Scalia by stating that there had in fact been no decision where the court “has ever found a restraint outside the scope of the patent to be unlawful.”  However, Justice Sotomayor challenged Mr. Weinberger to suggest another licensing situation where a patentee and a licensee appear to be sharing the monopoly profits.  Failing to provide a clear example in response to Justice Sotomayor, Mr. Weinberger argued instead that judges would have a hard time determining whether a given agreement was anticompetitive under the rule of reason.

The questions posed at the argument suggest that Justice Scalia favors affirmance, while four justices (Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) favor applying the rule of reason analysis or require at least some additional analysis of the anticompetitive effects beyond either the “scope of the patent” and “quick look” tests.  A decision is expected in the early summer.

This post represents solely the views of the author and does not represent the views of Schiff Hardin LLP or any clients of Schiff Hardin LLP.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Competition law, Indian Pharma, Pharma | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Ghost Post: Samsung v. Apple Presidential Enforcement Veto
    SpicyIP subscribers recently received a short blurb from Shamnad on this FT article regarding the hypocrisy of stamping 'national inter...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: GI for Pedana Kalamkari Art Form
    Image from here Recently, as The Hindu reports , Pedana Kalamkari art form received GI protection. Members of Vegetable Dye Hand Block Kalam...
  • Loss of an IP Leader: RIP Prof Daruwalla
    Most in the Indian IP firmament may have heard of the doleful demise of one of our IP leaders, Mr. Tehemtan Nasserwanji Daruwalla. He was an...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (41)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ▼  March (66)
      • US Department of Justice conducts review of IPXI
      • Public health activists lose challenge against Gil...
      • Bombay HC restrains the release of any trailers/te...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Viacom restrained from using 'Naut...
      • Recent decision on Protection of Plant Varieties A...
      • Ericsson sues Micromax over SEPs in 100-crore Pate...
      • Full Bench Delhi HC (Design Act)- Reckitt Benkise...
      • Guest Post: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in ...
      • Patent Office publishes final version of Guideline...
      • Joint Committees related to Trademark Matters
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (March- Week 4)
      • Copyright Constitutionality Challenges
      • Statistics of patent grants in India
      • Breaking News: India's Copyright Amendments Challe...
      • Copyright Rules, 2013 designed to fail the Copyrig...
      • Copy of the Copyright Rules, 2013
      • 'Mad Men' controversy
      • A clarification on the Fox-‘Knockout’ copyright di...
      • The recent AMUL-IMUL trademark controversy
      • India’s patent policy: Big Pharma’s grouse?
      • Pratibha Syntex lawsuit still pending before the D...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: An IP Thriller from an IP lawyer
      • US Supreme Court Supports Parallel Imports: Lesson...
      • IPAB’s first CL decision, resounding emphasis on p...
      • Government notifies Copyright Rules, 2013
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (March Week 3)
      • Knock(ed) Out!
      • US Patent Reform - 2013: A brief look at the AIA
      • Breaking News: Second Compulsory Licensing Applica...
      • Zanjeer Remake Row before the Bombay HC
      • Guest Post: Kallam Anji Reddy: 1941 - 2013
      • EU Human Rights Court justifies The Pirate Bay con...
      • Breaking Hot News: Madras High Court strikes down ...
      • DU Photocopy Case: Academicians and Authors expres...
      • Bombay HC: Publication of Examination Report on we...
      • Breaking "Hot" News: A "Star" Win for Unfair Compe...
      • The role played by Microsoft in getting California...
      • An outrageous Californian attempt at extra-territo...
      • Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Res...
      • Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Res...
      • Spicy IP Weekly Review: March 2nd Week
      • Latest update from Campaign for affordable trastuz...
      • A recent study shows that U.S. firms don’t actuall...
      • A Tantalising Copyright Offer: Lessons from Canada...
      • Auditing the worldwide litigation involving ‘Basma...
      • ‘Rethinking the data exclusivity debate in India’ ...
      • UOI v. Malhotra Book Depot- restoration of trademark.
      • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly annou...
      • Guest Post: Eye witness account of India's first c...
      • Guest Post: Eye witness account of India's first c...
      • Bombay High Court – Are courts allowed to examine ...
      • Life of P.I. - Keynote address by Justice Prabha S...
      • SpicyIP Event: Announcing Expert Speaker Panel for...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Saregama loses copyright claim for...
      • Guest Post: Book Review - V.J. Taraporevala, Law o...
      • Blocking order issued against six UK ISP's by Engl...
      • Film release strategies and anti-competitive pract...
      • Compulsory Licensing is Not a Bad Word!
      • ‘First set up the labs, then dream the Nobel’
      • Spicy IP Weekly review (March Week 1)
      • December 2012: Controller's decisions at the IPO
      • Patents vs. Patients: Department of Pharmaceutical...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: ViiV Healthcare collaborates with ...
      • Breaking News: Student Association Impleaded in Ac...
      • Kerala State Central Library digitizes Rare Books ...
      • Bombay High Court Decision on Trademark Infringeme...
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ►  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.