Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
By Tony Dutra
Nov. 7 — The U.S. Supreme Court refused Nov. 7 GlaxoSmithKline's request to take another look at when patent case settlement agreements between brand name and generic drug makers run afoul of antitrust laws ( SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence Inc., U.S., No. 15-1055, review denied 11/7/16 ).
The court held in 2013 in FTC v. Actavis Inc. that a “pay-for-delay” cash payment to the generic maker was anti-competitive. But the current case featured a more subtle pact: GSK agreed to withhold competitive “authorized generics” of anti-epileptic medicine Lamictal (lamotrigine) while Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. enjoyed 180 days of no competition for its generic.
GSK's petition argued that it did nothing more than grant an exclusive license to Teva, which any patentee can do, under Section 261 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §261.
But the high court took the advice of the U.S. government to deny the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General said that what GSK agreed to forgo during the six-month period was worth “tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars” to Teva (198 PTD, 10/13/16). That action is subject to antitrust scrutiny under the same “rule of reason” applied in Actavis, the government said.
The case now returns to district court.
King Drug Co. of Florence Inc. and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc., direct purchasers of Lamictal, filed an antitrust class action suit challenging the GSK-Teva agreement for violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint did not specify a desired award but said GSK received $2 billion in annual revenues near the end of the patent term.
Under the agreement, GSK may have enjoyed monopoly pricing as the exclusive Lamictal provider for three years between the date of the agreement and the date Teva first introduced its generic. And Teva would then have enjoyed for six months of anti-competitive value based on the difference between the price a sole generic on the market can ask versus the price when multiple generics compete.
A 2005 Food and Drug Administration study estimated that, when only one generic competes, it is priced at 94 percent of the brand-name drug price. The price when there is competition among “a large number of generic manufacturers” averages 20 percent of the branded price, the study found.Source Material:
Opinion Below: 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015)
District court case: No. 2:12-cv-00995 (D.N.J.)
U.S. Patent:No. 4,602,017
The issue arises because of the Hatch-Waxman Act procedure for introducing generic versions of patented brand-name drugs. The first-filing generic maker can challenge the validity of the patent in court and, if it wins, gets six-months of exclusivity against other generics.
But the generic maker can also settle with the brand drug maker without the court reaching a validity decision. That leaves other generic makers without a remedy. And it leaves drug buyers without a generic alternative longer than might be possible without the delayed-marketing terms of a settlement.
Here, Teva agreed in 2005 to drop its invalidity lawsuit, and GSK said Teva could enter the market with a generic in 2008, one day before U.S. Patent No. 4,602,017 on lamotrigine expired. GSK promised not to introduce an authorized generic for six months.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a district court's decision granting GSK and Teva's motion to dismiss. King Drug Co. of Florence Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388, 2015 BL 204709 (3d Cir. 2015)(117 PTD, 6/18/13).
Under the current district court schedule, the parties will be conducting discovery through at least February 2018.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Dutra in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)