"Pay for delay" settlements of disputes over pharmaceutical patents

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 365, Issue 15, 2011, Pages 1439-1445

  Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a   Murtagh, Lindsey ^b   Mello, Michelle M ^b  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLOPIDOGREL; DILTIAZEM; FLUOXETINE; GENERIC DRUG; OMEPRAZOLE; TERAZOSIN;

CERTIFICATION; CONSUMER; DRUG COST; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG MARKETING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH ECONOMICS; LAW; LAW SUIT; PATENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

EID: 80054051112     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMhle1102235     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Rosch JT. Remarks of FTC Commissioner: the antitrust/ intellectual property interface: thoughts on how to best wade through the thicket in the pharmaceutical context. November 17, 2010. (http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/ 101117roschworldspeech.pdf.)
2. Shuchman M. Delaying generic competition - corporate payoffs and the future of Plavix. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1297-300. (Pubitemid 44465456)
3. Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, HR 4899, 111th Cong, 2nd Sess (2010).
4. Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, S. 369, 111th Cong, 1st Sess (2009).
5. Pub. L. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984).
6. Food and Drug Administration. Orange book: approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. December 21, 2010. (http://www.accessdata. fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/default.cfm.)
7. Kesselheim AS, Fischer MA, Avorn J. Extensions of intellectual property rights and delayed adoption of generic drugs: effects on Medicaid spending. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25: 1637-47. (Pubitemid 44871732)
8. Eli Lilly v. Barr Labs, 251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
9. Anton J, Greene H, Yao DA. Policy implications of weak patent rights. In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S, eds. Innovation policy and the economy. Vol. 6. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006:1-26.
10. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).
11. Federal Trade Commission. Generic drug entry prior to patent expiration: an FTC study. July 2002. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/07/genericdrugstudy.pdf.)
12. Stolberg SG, Gerth J. Keeping down the competition; how companies stall generics and keep themselves healthy. New York Times. July 23, 2000.
13. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 (2010).
14. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911).
15. In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003).
16. Schering-Plough v. FTC, 402 F3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005).
17. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: summary of agreements filed in FY2004. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/01/050107medicareactrpt.pdf.)
18. Idem. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: summary of agreements filed in FY2005. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/04/ fy2005drugsettlementsrpt.pdf.)
19. Idem. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: summary of agreements filed in FY2006. (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/mmact/MMAreport2006. pdf.)
20. Idem. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: summary of agreements filed in FY2007. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/05/mmaact.pdf.)
21. Idem. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: summary of agreements filed in FY2008. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/01/ 100113mpdim2003rpt.pdf.)
22. Idem. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: summary of agreements filed in FY2009. (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/mmact/MMAreport2009. pdf.)
23. Idem. Agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: overview of agreements filed in FY2010. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/05/ 2010mmastaffreport.pdf.)
24. Higgins MJ, Graham SJH. Balancing innovation and access: patent challenges tip the scales. Science 2009;326:370-1.
25. Voet MA. The generic challenge: understanding patents, FDA and pharmaceutical life-cycle management. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press, 2005.
26. Hemphill CS. An aggregate approach to antitrust: using new data and rulemaking to preserve drug competition. Columbia Law Rev 2009;109:629-88.
27. Federal Trade Commission. How pay-for-delay settlements make consumers and the federal government pay more for much needed drugs. Prepared statement of the Federal Trade Commission before Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives. March 31, 2009. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/03/ P859910payfordelay.pdf.)
28. Complaint, FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Civil No. CV-09-00598 (CD Cal. 2009).
29. Brief amicus curiae of Federal Trade Commission in support of rehearing en banc, Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, 604 F.3d 98 (2nd Cir. 2010).
30. Peritz RJR. A brief introduction to competition concerns in 'pay-for-delay' settlement agreements between brand-name and generic drug companies. Research paper series 10/11 #10. New York Law School legal studies. 2010. (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718517.)
31. Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL, et al. The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:332-7. (Pubitemid 43244321)
32. Haas JS, Phillips KA, Gerstenberger EP, Seger AC. Potential savings from substituting generic drugs for brand-name drugs: medical expenditure panel survey, 1997-2000. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:891-7.
33. Engelberg AB. Special patent provisions for pharmaceuticals: have they outlived their usefulness? Intellect Prop Law Technol 1999;39:389-428.
34. Hemphill CS, Sampat BN. Evergreening, patent challenges, and effective market life in pharmaceuticals. Columbia Law and Economics working paper no. 399. May 3, 2011. (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1830404.)
35. Federal Trade Commission. Pay-for-delay: how drug company pay-offs cost consumers billions. January 2010. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/01/ 100112payfordelayrpt.pdf.)
36. Dickey B, Orszag J, Willig R. A preliminary economic analysis of the budgetary effects of proposed restrictions on "reverse payment" settlements. Compass Lexecon. August 10, 2010. (http://www.compasslexecon.com/ highlights/Documents/Dickey%20Orszag%20Willig%20CBO.pdf.)
37. Carrier MA. Unsettling drug patent settlements: a framework for presumptive illegality. Mich Law Rev 2009;108:37-80.
38. Crane DA. Exit payments in settlement of patent infringement lawsuits: antitrust rules and economic implications. Fla Law Rev 2002;54:747-97.
39. Roin BN. Unpatentable drugs and the standards of patentability. Tex Law Rev 2009;87:503-70.
40. Bernard KS, Tom WK. Antitrust treatment of pharmaceutical patent settlements: the need for context and fidelity to first principles. Fed Circuit Bar J 2005;15:617-34.
41. Hovenkamp H. The antitrust enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
42. Schering-Plough Corporation v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005).
43. Willig RD, Bigelow JP. Antitrust policy toward agreements that settle patent litigation. Antitrust Bull 2004;49:655-98.
44. Federal Trade Commission. Authorized generics: an interim report. June 2009. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/06/P062105authorizedgenericsreport.pdf.)
45. Berndt ER, Mortimer R, Bhattacharjya A, Parece A, Tuttle E. Authorized generic drugs, price competition, and consumers'welfare. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:790-9.
46. Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, S. 27, 112th Cong, 1st Sess (2011).
47. Belian D. FTC may move toward agency rule in fight against pay-for-delay deals. Generic Line 2010;27(23):1, 4.
48. The America Invents Act, S. 23, 112th Cong, 1st Sess (2011).
49. Fisher D. Cipro "pay-to-delay" case is ideal Supreme Court fodder. Full disclosure blog, Forbes Web site. September 10, 2010. (http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/09/10/cipro-pay-to-delay-case-is- ideal-supreme-court-fodder/.)