In the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed its anti-pay-to-delay powers, the Federal Trade Commission has launched several new investigations this year, the agency's healthcare chief told Bloomberg. The enforcers are hoping to hit some unlucky pharma company with a $1 billion settlement this year, an FTC official said earlier this year.
The Federal Trade Commission is so fed up with "pay-for-delay" pharma deals, that it's hoping to reach a $1 billion settlement in at least one pharma antitrust case this year. That's the word from Deborah Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, who revealed the agency's aims at a recent meeting of the American Bar Association's Section of Antitrust Law in Washington, D.C.
Patent settlements between drugmakers and generic manufacturers have drawn even more scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer that the Federal Trade Commission has a right to challenge them. At issue are "pay-for-delay" deals, in which manufacturers of branded drugs pay generics challengers to refrain from launching copies until an agreed-upon date.
India also has signed off on Mylan's deal to buy the injectable unit from Strides Arcolab. The company reportedly agreed there to maintain the production of certain drugs in India that Agila currently manufacturers.
The Federal Trade Commission has submitted an amicus brief in an antitrust case pitting drug retailers against Wyeth and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, in a challenge to the companies' Effexor XR settlement.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking a closer look at what the $8.5 billion buyout of Warner Chilcott by Actavis will mean for consumers.
The Federal Trade Commission and some consumer groups would like Congress to make pay-for-delay deals illegal. But the Generic Pharmaceutical Association has new stats it hopes can persuade Congress to leave well enough alone.
Just a week after the top court said U.S. drugmakers can be sued over agreements that delay generics, the court has found that generic drugmakers cannot be sued in state courts when their products cause adverse reactions.
The pay-for-delay ruling is in. That means legal experts and industry analysts are poring over the decision, trying to assess its consequences. Any consensus? By eschewing the Federal Trade Commission's position--that patent-settlement payments should be assumed anticompetitive--the Supreme Court left pharma some leeway. That's better than it might have been. But the choice also leaves a lot of uncertainty on the table. Here's a roundup of opinions and commentary >>
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the big pay-for-delay case. In a 5-3 vote, the court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission has the right to challenge brand-name drugmakers' patent settlements with generics companies. It's a slap in the face for the drug industry, which has united behind the settlements, saying they speed generics to market rather than impeding competition.