ILNews

Bottling up generics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus
The federal government recently asked the Supreme Court of the United States to put a stop to a pharmaceutical industry practice that’s become common enough to earn the shorthand legal description “pay to delay.”

The Federal Trade Commission sued over the practice whereby drugmakers agree to provide generic-drug manufacturers a “reverse payment settlement” to delay patent challenges that could allow less-expensive generics to be brought to market. The FTC claims “pay to delay” arrangements violate antitrust laws, and an FTC study says such deals cost consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion annually in higher drug costs.

FTC v. Actavis Inc., 12-416, was argued March 25, and justices are presented with divergent rulings from two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The 11th Circuit affirmed a District Court ruling in Actavis that reverse payments were lawful so long as they did not restrain trade beyond the way that patents typically do. The 3rd Circuit, meanwhile, held in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3D 197 (2012), that such arrangements are presumed anticompetitive and unlawful.

It’s not just patent law at issue in Actavis. The 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act – officially the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act – encourages production of lower-cost generic drugs and gives generic makers incentives and avenues to bring patent challenges.

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co., the fifth-largest pharmaceutical manufacturer in the U.S., has not filed an amicus brief in Actavis, according to Director of Global Corporate Communications Mark E. Taylor. Lilly had no comment on the litigation, Taylor said.

But it’s clear from court filings that Lilly opposes the FTC’s position. Lilly Vice President and General Patent Counsel Douglas K. Norman is a signer of an amicus brief in Actavis

filed on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners Association.

The brief says the Hatch-Waxman Act has fostered an environment in which generic makers file patent challenges regardless of their chances of success, sometimes doing so without putting their products on the market.

“Data collected by the Federal Trade Commission show that generic drug makers have raced one another to challenge innovators’ patents, and that they have compelling incentives to do so with little or no regard for the merits of those challenges,” the IPOA brief says.

“There is no basis in law or logic to require the settling parties in a Hatch-Waxman case to overcome a presumption of illegality in order to justify a reverse payment settlement. To create such a requirement would negate the well-established statutory presumption of a patent’s validity,” the brief says. “Instead, the court should hold that the objectives of the antitrust laws are met by asking whether the settlement unreasonably restrains trade outside the scope of the patent in question and allowing the parties to reach an arm’s-length bargain where no such impact is apparent.”

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP partner Aime Peele Carter also has joined an amicus brief in opposition to the FTC as a member of the board of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association. The group agrees that the justices should use a scope-of-patent test to determine whether pay-to-delay agreements should be allowed.

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart argued on behalf of the FTC that such a test would restrict legitimate challenges. “There’s nothing in the Patent Act that says you can pay your competitor not to engage in conduct that you believe to be infringing,” Stewart told the justices.

California attorney Jeffrey I. Weinberger argued before the justices on behalf of Actavis and other drugmakers that the scope-of-patent test would rectify what he called a loophole in Hatch-Waxman.

“In any other industry a potential challenger has to make a major investment in a product, has to get it manufactured, has to put it on sale, and then litigate. And if they lose, they are going to be liable for enormous damages. That’s not the case under Hatch-Waxman,” Weinberger argued. “If they lose (a patent challenge), they haven’t lost anything. They just walk away.”

The American IP Lawyers Association, Carter said, “is taking the position that when you look at this in broad brushstrokes, Hatch-Waxman shifted the burden and the risk for generic manufacturers by allowing them to start to take steps to get to market sooner, and because of that, there’s been a growth of different ways to resolve those potential challenges to the patentee,” including reverse payment settlements.

“What this really gets to is the fundamental tension between federal antitrust laws and inventors who want to gain a patent to have a monopoly for a certain number of years,” Carter said. “I think anyone who’s involved in health care or pharmaceutical preparation at all is interested in this, whether it’s on the generic or the branded side.”

Don Knebel is a senior adviser to the Center for Intellectual Property Research at Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington and a veteran antitrust and IP attorney at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. He also is an adjunct professor at Maurer who teaches intellectual property antitrust.

For years, pharmaceutical companies largely assumed they were on firm legal footing in offering settlements to generic makers to fend off patent challenges, Knebel said. Pharmaceutical makers could retain a revenue stream from their patented drugs and generic producers could receive an agreeable, negotiated sum to drop their challenges for a specified time.

The 3rd Circuit ruling changed that, Knebel said. “Now, it is essentially up for grabs.”

“The FTC has been arguing for years, and on what I would consider a crusade, to stop these agreements,” Knebel said.

Knebel has represented clients on both sides of the issue, and both sides present compelling arguments. The court could determine that reverse payment settlements are always legal, never legal, or must be decided on a case-by-case basis, he said.

“Until this issue is resolved by the Supreme Court, I think branded pharmaceutical companies are going to be reluctant to enter into these agreements,” he added.

However the court decides, Knebel doesn’t believe the outcome will harm innovation. He said pharmaceutical companies will still have an incentive to produce new products to win patents, and generic makers will continue to be motivated to challenge those patents.•
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT