Agreements must be judged by antitrust’s rule of reason to determine true consequences.
In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that reverse-payment settlements in patent litigation may violate the antitrust laws, even when the settlement is within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The 5-to-3 majority settled a split among the federal appellate courts.
The case involved “pay-for-delay” settlements, in which a drug patent holder settles an infringement action by paying the patent challenger to drop its challenge and stay out of the market. Settlements occur between drug makers because of a statutory scheme set forth in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984.
A generic manufacturer piggy-backing on the brand drug must certify that it is not infringing the brand-name patent, because, for instance, the patent is invalid. Drug manufacturers sometimes settle cases by paying the generic manufacturer to stay out of the market for a certain period of time. Essentially, they share monopoly profits of the brand-name patent with the generic manufacturer and keep their own drug prices high.
In Actavis, Solvay Pharmaceuticals owned a patent related to the drug Andro-Gel. Generic manufacturers Actavis and Paddock Laboratories filed applications for generic approvals for competing drugs under section IV of the Act, and certified that Solvay’s patent was invalid. Solvay subsequently sued Actavis and Paddock, and then entered into a pay-for-delay settlement with those companies and a third generic competitor, Par. Solvay agreed to pay $12 million to Paddock, $60 million to Par and an estimated $19 million to $30 million annually to Actavis for nine years. The generics agreed to stay out of the market for nine years. The FTC challenged the agreements as anticompetitive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The Supreme Court held that such agreements have “significant adverse effects on competition” by eliminating the one competitor most likely to introduce competition quickly. The majority rejected the argument that a pay-for-delay settlement cannot be anticompetitive, noting that the consequences may be unjustified because the patent could have been invalid or because the generic may not have been within the patent’s scope.
The Court, however, declined the FTC’s request to hold that such settlements are presumptively unlawful, instead holding that agreements must be judged by antitrust’s “rule of reason,” under which the anticompetitive consequences must be weighed against potential justifications for the settlement. The Court noted that “an unexplained large reverse payment itself would normally suggest that the patentee has serious doubts about the patent’s survival,” serving as a surrogate for a patent’s weakness, without the court examining the patent’s validity itself.
By opening such reverse payments to antitrust challenge, the Actavis decision raises as many questions as it resolves. A violation of the “rule of reason” is in most contexts difficult to prove. However, the Supreme Court’s recognition that pay-for-delay agreements have “significant adverse effects on competition” provides a route for lower courts to invalidate pay-for-delay agreements even under the fact-specific antitrust standard. Companies that engage in pay-for-delay arrangements must now consider whether they can justify the settlement as a pro-competitive agreement, and be aware that the more lucrative the settlement is, the more difficult it may be to justify.
Maura L. Hughes is a partner in the Litigation group at Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP. She can be reached at 216.622.8335, or by email at mhughes@calfee.com.
What Payers Need to Know As Retail Pharmacies Move Into Primary Care
September 6th 2023Healthcare beyond the doors of the doctor’s office has the potential to offer more care to more people. But payers need to think about how to ensure that care is consistent. Regardless of the setting, care decisions must be based on evidence-based content and supported with strong patient education.
Read More
David Calabrese of OptumRx Talks New Role, Market Insulin Prices and Other Topics 'On His Mind'
April 13th 2023In this month’s episode of the "What's On Your Mind podcast," Peter Wehrwein, managing editor of MHE connects with the now Chief Clinical Officer of OptumRx Integrated Pharmacies, David Calabrese. In this conversation, David touches on his transition in January as OptumRx’s former chief pharmacy officer and market president of health plans and PBMs to his new role as Chief Clinical Officer where he now focuses more on things such as specialty pharmacy to home delivery — with an overall goal of creating whole-patient care. Throughout the conversation, Calabrese also touched on the market’s hot topic of insulin prices and behavioral health services within the OptumRx community, among other topics.
Listen
Addressing the Barriers of Medication Adherence Through Digital Health
July 9th 2023Tony Little, ND, VP of Solutions Architecture at Prescryptive Health, shares how the organization is tackling one of the biggest barriers to prescription adherence — cost — through a digital app, among the other barriers patients face.
Read More
Briana Contreras, editor of Managed Healthcare Executive, spoke with Nancy Lurker, CEO and president of EyePoint Pharmaceuticals. Nancy shared a bit about EyePoint and how the organization’s innovative therapies are addressing patient needs through eye care, and most importantly, she addressed C-Suite positions like the CEO role. Nancy shared advice for those seeking to reach the CEO level, especially toward women in healthcare and other roles, and what it takes to run a biopharma company.
Listen