FTC vs Actavis – Aftermath of the verdict.
By Rory Bligh, Analyst
21 June 2013
As part of Datamonitor Healthcare’s Company Analysis function, I cover generic and biosimilar products with a part...
Read full bio
On June 17th, the US Supreme Court finally delivered a verdict regarding the legality of reverse payment, or ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements, in which a would-be generic manufacturer accepts payment from the patent holder in order to delay the market launch of a generic drug. Such settlements have been a popular and lucrative practice for brand and generic manufacturers alike, with the number of drugs involved rising across fiscal years 2005–2012. The legality of their anticompetitive effects has though become a contentious issue.
The Supreme Court reversed a previous court’s dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s complaints against Actavis. The complaints allege that a reverse payment settlement between Actavis (then Watson) and Solvay over Solvay’s AndroGel product breached antitrust law. The verdict of a 5–3 court majority further ruled that whilst reverse payment settlements are not inherently illegal, their anticompetitive effects do render them susceptible to antitrust scrutiny.
This White Paper explores how the ruling will impact the dynamics of generic drug market entry – download your free copy using the adjacent form.
This analysis includes:
- The quantity of potential reverse payment settlements by year
- Trends in average value of drug per settlement
- Types of antitrust analysis employed in reverse payment disputes
- The quantity of reverse payment rulings by antitrust analysis method