A US Court of Appeals holds that antitrust law is not implicated provided that the terms of “pay for delay” settlements between the brand name and generic pharma companies are within the scope of the patent (Valley Drug/Abbott Laboratories)

A recent 11th Circuit case, Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sheds light on the complex intersection of patent and antitrust law in the context of a settlement agreement between a name brand pharmaceutical manufacturer and two allegedly infringing generic manufacturers that were seeking FDA approval of a drug patented by the name brand manufacturer [1]. The plaintiffs in this case claimed that the settlement agreements constituted a horizontal contract in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act [2]. The district court agreed, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the agreements were per se anticompetitive. On appeal, the 11th Circuit reversed. It held that such settlement agreements must be analyzed to

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

Authors

  • Hill, Kertscher & Wharton (Atlanta)
  • Sutherland

Quotation

John L. North, William L. Warren, A US Court of Appeals holds that antitrust law is not implicated provided that the terms of “pay for delay” settlements between the brand name and generic pharma companies are within the scope of the patent (Valley Drug/Abbott Laboratories), 15 September 2003, e-Competitions Bulletin Competition in the Pharmaceutical sector, Art. N° 52996

Visites 259

All issues

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