Antitrust Law - Rejecting the "Scope of the Patent" Test in Analysis of Reverse Payments in Pharmaceutical Industry

By Coffin, Abbey P. | Suffolk University Law Review, Spring 2013 | Go to article overview

Antitrust Law - Rejecting the "Scope of the Patent" Test in Analysis of Reverse Payments in Pharmaceutical Industry


Coffin, Abbey P., Suffolk University Law Review


Antitrust Law--Rejecting the "Scope of the Patent" Test in Analysis of Reverse Payments in Pharmaceutical Industry--In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3 Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 81 U.S.L.W. 3090 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2012) (No. 12-265); 81 U.S.L.W. 3090 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2012) (No. 12-245)

The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act) prohibits businesses from contracting, combining, and conspiring to restrain trade or commerce. (1) Reverse-payment-patent-settlement agreements between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies--whereby a brand-name-patent holder pays its generic competitor to drop a pending patent suit and refrain from producing its generic drug for a definite period of time--are generally subject to antitrust review under the Sherman Act. (2) In In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, (3) the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether reverse-payment agreements between Schering-Plough Corporation (Schering) and its generic competitors Upsher-Smith Laboratories (Upsher) and ESI Lederle (ESI) amounted to an unreasonable restraint on trade. (4) Parting with other circuits that more recently addressed the issue, the court expressly rejected the common scope-of-the-patent test and held that reverse-payment agreements between a pharmaceutical patent holder and a potential generic competitor constitute a prima facie violation of the Sherman Act's proscription against unreasonable restraints on trade. (5)

On September 5, 1989, Schering was granted a patent ('743 Patent) on the controlled-release potassium-chloride supplement, K-Dur 20 (K-Dur). (6) In late 1995, Upsher and ESI filed individual Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval to make and sell generic versions of K-Dur. (7) In response to notification of the ANDA filings, Schering initiated separate patent-infringement suits against Upsher and ESI in the United States District Courts for the District of New Jersey and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (8) Prior to adjudicating the merits of either infringement suit, however, Schering negotiated settlements with Upsher and ESI. (9)

In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Schering, Upsher, and ESI, alleging that the parties' patent-litigation settlements unreasonably restrained trade because the reverse-payment provisions were intended to improperly preserve Schering's drug-patent monopoly. (10) The FTC Administrative Law Judge originally dismissed the complaint; however, in December 2003, the FTC unanimously reversed, concluding that the reverse payments at issue violated antitrust laws because the parties could not demonstrate their procompetitive effects, or that they were for a purpose other than delaying market entry. (11) After Schering appealed the FTC's ruling, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on grounds that Schering had the right to exclude competitors as the K-Dur patent holder, and that public policy favors settlement of costly litigation. (12)

Wholly independent of the FTC's complaint, a group of wholesalers and retailers that purchased K-Dur directly also filed suit under antitrust law for the alleged illegality of Schering's settlement agreements with Upsher and ESI. (13) These cases were consolidated into the instant class action, In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation. (14) The district court adopted the recommendation of the Special Master and granted summary judgment to Schering, Upsher, and ESI, finding that the settlements were subject to antitrust scrutiny only if they exceeded the scope of Schering's patent or if the underlying claims of patent infringement were objectively baseless. (15) On appeal, the Third Circuit rejected the district court's application of the scope-of-the-patent test and, on remand, directed the district court to instead use a "quick look" rule-of-reason analysis. (16) The Third Circuit further held that the trier of fact must treat any reverse payment to a generic competitor as prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint on trade. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Antitrust Law - Rejecting the "Scope of the Patent" Test in Analysis of Reverse Payments in Pharmaceutical Industry
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.