Magazine article Drug Topics

SCOTUS Splits on Pay-for-Delay Deals

Magazine article Drug Topics

SCOTUS Splits on Pay-for-Delay Deals

Article excerpt

A WIN FOR CONSUMERS

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for and against pay-fordelay deals between brand-name drug makers and their generic competitors.

In a 5-3 decision in June, the justices ruled that deals in which brand-name companies pay generic firms to delay entry of a cheaper version of the reference product are not inherently legal. The case was a win for the Federal Trade Commission, which has fought pay-for-delay for more than a decade.

Justices also ruled that pay-for-delay deals must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and could be legal under some circumstances. That proviso could open the way for future pay-for-delay agreements.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case, Federal Trade Commission vs. Actavis, Inc. Et Al. The case involved an FTC challenge to a pay-for-delay agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals (now part of AbbVie), Actavis (formerly Watson Pharmaceuticals), Paddock Laboratories (now part of Perrigo), and Par Pharmaceuticals. Solvay challenged generic versions of its AndroGel (testosterone) in 2003, but settled in 2006 under a pay-for-delay deal. Solvay agreed to pay generic companies as much as $30 million yearly to not market their own testosterone gel products. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.