The US Supreme Court declines to review a Second Circuit ruling permitting a reverse-payment settlement between branded and a generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Lousiana Wholesale Drug / Bayer)

A growing consensus among federal courts that so-called “reverse-payment” settlements rarely violate antitrust law has not tempered antitrust enforcement authorities’ opposition to such deals. In the pharmaceutical industry, brand-name drug manufacturers may file patent infringement lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers that apply for Food and Drug Administration approval to market a generic version of a branded drug. Sometimes, these cases end in a settlement whereby the generic drug manufacturer agrees to withhold its product from the market for a specified period of time in exchange for a payment from the patent-holding manufacturer of the brand-name drug. These agreements, often called “reverse-payment” settlements or “pay-for-delay” deals, face significant opposition from 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

Authors

Quotation

William R. Vigdor, Tyler J. Bexley, The US Supreme Court declines to review a Second Circuit ruling permitting a reverse-payment settlement between branded and a generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Lousiana Wholesale Drug / Bayer), 7 March 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin Competition in the Pharmaceutical sector, Art. N° 53009

Visites 142

All issues

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