December 4, 2021

Volume XI, Number 338

Advertisement
Advertisement

December 03, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 02, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 01, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

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 © 2021 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume II, Number 345
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Womble Bond Dickinson, LLP's regional heritage and local knowledge — combined with a transatlantic outlook — generate the insights capable of unlocking more opportunities for our clients.

With locations on both sides of the Atlantic, we provide the breadth of legal experience and services to meet our clients’ needs without losing the intimacy of being connected to our different communities.

These strong local and regional ties enable us to remain close to our clients and the issues they care about.

...
336-721-3734
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement