Advertisement

April 21, 2014

Supreme Court Will Review Eleventh Circuit’s Decision in Andro-Gel® “Pay for Delay” Case

The Supreme Court acted with faster-than-expected speed, granting a petition to review an Eleventh Circuit decision upholding a “pay for delay” agreement (also called a “reverse payment” agreement),[1] which involves the patented drug AndroGel®, against an antitrust attack.  As reported in Bloomberg.com, “Companies have struck more than 100 such deals since 2005.”

The Supreme Court granted the petition on December 7, literally only days after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed its reply brief on November 21, further advocating for Supreme Court review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.  In that reply brief, the FTC specifically addressed arguments by two of the respondents to its petition (Par Pharmaceutical Cos. and Paddock Holdings, Inc.) that the Supreme Court should deny review, and argued that this case provides a vehicle for review superior to that presented in two petitions seeking review of a Third Circuit decision in a pay-for-delay case.[2]  As reported in our November 15 post, another respondent (Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) actually agreed with the FTC that the Supreme Court should review the case, but argued that it should affirm the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.

The case before the Supreme Court is Federal Trade Comm’n v. Watson Pharms., Inc., No. 12-416 (filed 10/04/12).

For further details about this case, see also our blog posts of October 8 and July 23.


[1] The Eleventh Circuit defines such agreements as those in which a patent owner settles infringement litigation by paying “the allegedly infringing generic drug company to delay entering the market until a specified date, thereby protecting the patent monopoly against a judgment that the patent is invalid or would not be infringed by the generic competitor.”  Federal Trade Comm’n v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 677 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012), reh’g denied (11th Cir. Jul. 18, 2012).

[2] Those petitions are: Merck & Co. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., No. 12-245 (filed 08/24/12), and Upsher-Smith Labs Inc. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., No. 12-265 (filed 08/29/12).  The Third Circuit decision is In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012).

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Established in Winston-Salem in 1876, the firm now comprises 550 lawyers in 14 offices, including Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Greensboro, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, NC; Atlanta, GA; Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, SC; Tysons Corner, VA; Washington, DC; Baltimore, MD, Wilmington, DE and Silicon Valley, CA..  A full-service business law firm, Womble Carlyle serves a wide range of regional, national and international clients in industries that include health care, life sciences, financial services, commercial real estate, intellectual property/patent, and telecommunications,...

336-721-3734

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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