A US Court of Appeals holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a generic would-be competitor is a per se antitrust violation because the agreement exceeded the scope of the patent (Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation)

Introduction In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation (“Cardizem”) [1] is one of the first in a long line of cases challenging the so-called reverse payment or pay-for-delay settlement agreements between the pharmaceutical companies. In Cardizem, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an interim patent litigation settlement between a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a generic would-be competitor was a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The reverse payment agreement in Cardizem did not settle the underlying patent litigation, but rather provided for payments from the brand-name company to the generic, beginning on the date that the generic company would receive approval to sell a generic version of the brand-name drug and ending on the date the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • United First Partners

Quotation

Anna M. Pavlik, A US Court of Appeals holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a generic would-be competitor is a per se antitrust violation because the agreement exceeded the scope of the patent (Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation), 24 July 2003, e-Competitions Bulletin Competition in the Pharmaceutical sector, Art. N° 54097

Visites 137

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues