Pink Sheet is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Compromise On “Pay For Delay”? Supreme Court Hunts for Middle Ground

This article was originally published in RPM Report

Executive Summary

During Supreme Court oral arguments in the AndroGel pay-for-delay case, the government and drug manufacturers each pushed for a one-size-fits-all antitrust interpretation of brand-generic reverse payment settlements. But the most likely outcome will probably fall somewhere in the middle: allowing the deals to continue, but with additional scrutiny to ensure they are not anticompetitive.

You may also be interested in...



FTC’s Last Stand On Pay-For-Delay Deals? Supreme Court To Make Call On Legality

The high court will determine whether brand-generic reverse payments to settle patent disputes are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful when it takes up FTC v. Actavis; a ruling affirming the lower court would enable companies to enter agreements without the threat of litigation.

The End Of Pay-For-Delay? FTC Sees An Opportunity In AndroGel Lawsuit

Reverse payment settlements are a popular tactic for settling patent disputes between brand companies and their generic competitors. The Federal Trade Commission has aggressively (but mostly unsuccessfully) fought “pay-for-delay” deals in the courts, arguing that they drive up drug prices. Now FTC has its best chance yet at convincing the Supreme Court to hear the issue. Is this the end of pay-for-delay?

Expanded Access Cost Distribution: FDA Clarifies New Rules For Charging Patients

Revised draft guidance makes clear that sponsors may charge all patients a flat administrative fee to cover ‘startup’ costs, regardless of when they join.

Topics

Related Companies

Latest News
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS081118

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel