Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Antitrust and Patent Law Analysis of Pharmaceutical Reverse Payment Settlements

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Herbert J. Hovenkamp, University of Iowa - College of Law provides Antitrust and Patent Law Analysis of Pharmaceutical Reverse Payment Settlements.

ABSTRACT: Patent settlements in which the patentee pays the alleged infringer to stay out of the market are largely a consequence of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which was designed to facilitate the entry of generic drugs by providing the first generic producer to challenge a pioneer drug patent with a 180 day period of exclusivity. This period can be extended by a settlement even if the generic is not producing, and in any event all subsequent generic firms are denied the 180 day exclusivity period, significantly reducing their incentive to enter.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal are split three ways over such settlements. The Sixth Circuit has declared them unlawful per se. The Second and Federal Circuits conclude they are legal, provided that the patent lawsuit was not a “sham” and the settlement does not reach beyond the scope of the patent. The Eleventh Circuit would apply a rule of reason. The FTC has consistently opposed these agreements as unlawful under FTC Act §5. The Antitrust Division has recently changed its position and now regards them as presumptively unlawful.

Reaching a reverse payment settlement is typically far more lucrative for a generic than defeating the patent in litigation. This fact substantially undermines the generic’s incentives to litigate infringement to a conclusion and makes it essential that post-settlement challenges be pursued by someone other than the generic firm.

Both the rules of virtual per se illegality and legality generally attempt to resolve antitrust challenges to these agreements without inquiring into patent validity or infringement. Rules of presumptive illegality rest on the premise that a very high payment itself is a strong indicator of patent invalidity. By contrast, antitrust’s rule of reason typically requires inquiry into validity and infringement. If the patent is valid and infringed, then even a large payment for the full remaining life of the patent represents a wealth transfer but causes consumer harm only if the payment increases the pioneer’s costs and thus may increase its drug price. At the other extreme, a patent that is invalid or not infringed should invite immediate generic entry, and the delay imposed by the reverse payment settlement represents competitive harm equivalent to that of any naked market division agreement. However, the costs attending a rule of reason inquiry makes it appropriate to consider alternatives that might be available within patent law, which this essay explores.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2011/02/antitrust-and-patent-law-analysis-of-pharmaceutical-reverse-payment-settlements.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0148c7c7057b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Antitrust and Patent Law Analysis of Pharmaceutical Reverse Payment Settlements:

Comments

Here is a similar story

The pharmaceutical industry plays an important role in improving human health. But it also provides the setting for some of the most concerning issues in the patent-antitrust intersection today. Two activities are particularly worrisome.

First, brand-name pharmaceutical firms and generic companies have settled patent litigation. As part of these agreements, brand firms have paid generic firms to drop their patent challenges and delay entering the market.

Posted by: Copyright Attorney | Feb 17, 2011 9:48:41 PM

Seems to me that companies are pushing harder than before to compete with competitors without doing the actual work of inventing new things rather just building on the work of others I think as this trend continues so will the cases of patent litigation increase. For more info on the subject. http://inventors.generalpatent.com/inventor-resources/patent-litigation

Posted by: Jared | Feb 21, 2011 9:54:46 AM

The difficulties between antitrust and patent law are enhanced by the fact that the two fields use similar concepts but with different meanings and implications.
navigating the intersection between patent and antitrust.

Posted by: Patent lawyer | Mar 24, 2011 7:25:02 PM

The difficulties between antitrust and patent law intersection issues are enhanced by the fact that the two fields uses similar concepts but with different meanings and implications.

Posted by: FTC Lawyer | Mar 24, 2011 8:21:20 PM

Post a comment