May 21, 2012

Banning "Pay-For Delay" Settlements and Resale Price Maintenance are Senate Antitrust Subcommittee's Top Legislative Priorities

In a recent interview, Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, discussed the subcommittee's legislative priorities for 2010. At the top of the list is passage of the Preserve Affordable Access to Generics Act, which would prevent anticompetitive "pay-for-delay" patent settlements in which a brand-name pharmaceutical company pays a generic drug maker millions of dollars in exchange for an agreement to stop selling a generic version of the drug.
 

According to Senator Kohl, generic drugs are often sold for more than 80% less than brand-name drugs. The Federal Trade Commission has calculated that pay-for-delay settlements will cost consumers $3.5 billion per year over the next 10 years.

The legislation, which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall, presumes that pay-for-delay settlements are illegal. The presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the settlement is pro-competitive.

The subcommittee's next priority is the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, which would overrule the Supreme Court's 2007 Leegin decision and restore the ban on manufacturers' setting minimum resale prices. Resale price maintenance or vertical price fixing was per se illegal under the Sherman Act for 96 years, until the Leegin decision held that the practice had to be evaluated under the rule of reason.

According to Senator Kohl, evaluating vertical price fixing under the rule of reason will leave most cases unchallenged because of how difficult and expensive it is to prove a rule of reason case. "If the Leegin decision stands, consumers will have less and less access to discount products, prices will rise and retail competition will be injured."

Also on the subcommittee's agenda is a bill that would eliminate the railroad antitrust exemption and the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act ("NOPEC"). NOPEC would remove sovereign immunity from nations that conspire to fix the price of oil. Senator Kohl noted that a NOPEC bill passed both the Senate and House by large majorities in the last Congress, but in different forms.

Posted on May 26, 2010 by Sheppard Mullin

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Partner

Robert L. Magielnicki is a partner in the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group.  He has a multi-disciplinary practice and engages in a diverse commercial practice with emphasis on antitrust, domestic and international business transactions, and complex civil and criminal litigation.

202.218.0002

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.