Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

FTC says drug patent settlements used to delay generics

Related Topics

Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:35pm EDT

(Reuters) - The Federal Trade Commission said makers of branded drugs that settle patent challenges by promising not to launch their own generic alternatives are using such agreements to delay generic competition.

In a friends-of-the-court brief, the regulatory agency said such patent settlements in which drug companies agree not to launch their own authorized generic versions are a way of paying a generic rival to delay their entry into the market.

The assessment came as a federal court in New Jersey that oversees many lawsuits against drug companies weighs a private antitrust challenge to such an agreement between Pfizer Inc's Wyeth unit and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the world's largest generic drug maker.

"Empirical evidence confirms what the pharmaceutical industry has long understood: that a no-(authorized generic) commitment provides a convenient method for branded drug firms to pay generic patent challengers for agreeing to delay entry," the agency said in a so-called friend-of-the-court brief filed on Friday.

A court should "carefully consider the economic realities of no-AG commitments and their impact on consumers," it added.

The FTC weighed in on antitrust litigation brought in June by CVS Caremark Corp and Rite Aid Corp accusing Pfizer and Teva of conspiring to keep generic versions of the popular antidepressant Effexor XR off store shelves.

Walgreen Co, Kroger Co, Safeway Inc, Supervalu Inc and HEB Grocery Co made similar claims in a lawsuit filed in the same court in December.

The judge presiding over the Effexor case had asked for briefings to assess how the case was affected by a recent ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that payments by a branded drugmaker to a potential generic rival can be "evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade" if they keep generic drugs off the market.

(Reporting By Susan Kelly; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
gregbrew56 wrote:
If the patent holder (Company “A”), pays Company “B” the same amount Company “B” would make on the generic for ten years, Company “B” doesn’t have to develop the generic, and still makes the same amount of money. Company “A” continues to sell the higher priced original, and continues to rake in the dough. Everybody wins!

Oh, wait…except for the consumer.

THIS IS

REALLY

HAPPENING!

Aug 13, 2012 8:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.