The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion today in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements between innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that are challenged as antitrust violations should be reviewed under a traditional rule of reason analysis.

The Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which along with other circuits had held that such settlements were immune from antitrust scrutiny provided the settlement was within the “scope of the patent.” Yet the Court also rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s request that the settlements be held presumptively illegal under the antitrust laws, a position adopted by the Third Circuit in another case. By subjecting such settlements to the fact-intensive rule of reason inquiry, the decision likely will result in increased litigation challenging such settlements on antitrust grounds.

In Actavis, the FTC brought an antitrust challenge against a settlement between an innovator and several generic drug companies that contained cash payments from the innovator to the generic drug companies. The settlement also provided that the generic companies would not seek to enter the market for a set period of time. Under the statutory scheme for generic drug approval, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, a generic drug manufacturer must file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA before marketing its drug.

The Hatch-Waxman Act recognizes that the innovator company’s patents provide it with a lawful means of excluding generic competitors for a set period of time. The ANDA therefore must include a certification for each of the patents used in the brand-name drug. One type, a “Paragraph IV” certification, states that the brand company’s patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the generic product. The reverse payment settlements at issue in Actavis settled the Paragraph IV litigation.

The FTC asked the Court to adopt a new test that would render such settlements “presumptively unlawful” under the antitrust laws. The defendant pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, asked the Court to hold that, when the exclusionary effects of the settlement are within the “scope of the patent,” the settlement does not violate the antitrust laws.

The Court rejected both positions. Instead, it adopted the rule of reason used for most antitrust cases, holding that in assessing reverse payment settlements, courts should balance the pro-competitive effects of the settlement against any anti-competitive effects. Specifically, the Court held that “trial courts can structure antitrust litigation so as to avoid, on the one hand, the use of antitrust theories too abbreviated to permit proper analysis, and, on the other, consideration of every possible fact or theory irrespective of the minimal light it may shed on the basic question—that of the presence of significant unjustified anticompetitive consequences.”

In particular, the Court emphasized that legality of the payment may depend in part on its size, both in absolute terms and in relation to potential litigation costs, as well as the absence of any justification for the payment other than to delay generic entry. Beyond those broad parameters, the Court provided little guidance to lower courts.

Please join us and two antitrust economists for a webinar on June 25, 2013, to discuss the implications of the Court’s decision.

For more information, please contact Leslie E. John at 215.864.8212 or john@ballardspahr.com, Edward D. Rogers at 215.864.8144 or rogerse@ballardspahr.com, Stephen J. Kastenberg at 215.864.8122 or kastenberg@ballardspahr.com, or Jason A. Leckerman at 215.864.8266 or leckermanj@ballardspahr.com. 


Copyright © 2013 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.

Related Practices

Antitrust
Appellate
Health Care
Intellectual Property
Life Sciences and Technology
Litigation