The US Court of Appeals holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a potential competitor is a per se antitrust violation because the agreement exceeded the "scope of the patent" (Cardizem)

Pavlik, Anna M.

Previous article The US Court of Appeals holds that if the terms of pay for delay settlements between the brand name and generic pharma companies are within the "scope of the patent" antitrust law is not implicated (Abbott / Geneva / Zenith) Next article The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal confirms infringement in paroxetine pay-for-delay case but slashes fines (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

24 Jul 2003

The US Court of Appeals holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a potential competitor is a per se antitrust violation because the agreement exceeded the "scope of the patent" (Cardizem)

KEYWORDS

Reference

US Court of Appeals, Cardizem, No 332 F.3d 896, 24 July 2003

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

Anna M. Pavlik
United First Partners (New York)

United States 11 contributions 6956 visits

Quotation

Anna M. Pavlik, The US Court of Appeals holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a potential competitor is a per se antitrust violation because the agreement exceeded the "scope of the patent" (Cardizem), 24 July 2003, e-Competitions Pay-for-delay agreements, Art. N° 54097

Visites 278