Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Are reverse payments and pay-for-delay settlements business as usual or an anticompetitive practice?

Nature Biotechnology volume 34, pages 716–719 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Cash payments and other arrangements between patent holders and their competitors in exchange for a delayed market entry interfere with free-market principles and keep product prices at a premium, which affects payers, governments, healthcare providers and especially patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

References

  1. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. Public Law 98–417, 98th Congress (1984).

  2. Hemphill Kraus, E.J. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1681–1683 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kesselheim, A.S., Murtagh, L. & Mello, M.M. N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1439–1445 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Reiss, B.S. & Hall, G.D. Guide to Federal Pharmacy Law 7th edn. (Apothecary Press, Boynton Beach, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sherwood, T. Generic Drugs: Overview of ANDA Review Process. CDER Forum for International Drug Regulatory Authorities http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM167310.pdf (FDA, Washington, DC, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Liebowitz, J. “Pay-for-Delay” Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: How Congress Can Stop Anticompetitive Conduct, Protect Consumers' Wallets, and Help Pay for Health Care Reform (The $35 Billion Solution) https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2009/06/pay-delay-settlements-pharmaceutical-industry-how-congress-can-stop (FTC, Washington, DC, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Federal Trade Commission. Pay-for-Delay: How Drug Company Pay-Offs Cost Consumer Billions. =(FTC, Washington, 2010).

  8. Nelson, R. Pay-for-Delay Drug Deals: Do They Hurt or Help Patients? http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/843231_print (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis. 133 S.Ct. 1630 (2013).

  10. Savage, D.G. High court rules 'pay-for-delay' drug deals can face antitrust suits. Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/business/la-fi-court-generic-drugs-20130618 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Frieden, J. Supreme Court Split on Pharma 'Pay for Delay' Deals http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/39891 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Forman, A., Howley, D.J., Michaels, J. & Rule, C.F. United States: FTC continues aggressive posture on reverse payment settlement agreements with reference to disgorgement. Mondaq http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/304720/Trade+Regulation+Practices/FTC+Continues+Aggressive+Posture+on+Reverse+Payment+Settlement+Agreements+with+Reference+to+Disgorgement (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Federal Trade Commission. FTC settlement of Cephalon Pay for Delay Case Ensures $1.2 Billion in Ill-Gotten Gains Relinquished; Refunds Will Go to Purchasers Affected by Anticompetitive Tactics. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-settlement-cephalon-pay-delay-case-ensures-12-billion-ill (FTC, 2015).

  14. Silber, S., Lutinski, J. & Maddock, R. “Good luck” post-Actavis: current state of play on “pay-for-delay” settlements . CPI Antitrust Chronicle https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/good-luck-post-actavis-current-state-of-play-on-pay-for-delay-settlements/ (24 November 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lipitor Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. 2014). In: Jersey DoN, ed. LEXIS 127877, at *652014:44.

  16. Effexor XR Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. 2014). In: Jersey DoN, ed. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142206, *692014.

  17. In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 367, 392 (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2013). 2013.

  18. Time Insurance Co. v. Astrazeneca AB, No. 14–4149 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2014); In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2014). 2014.

  19. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Teikoku Pharm USA Inc., No. 14-md-02521 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014).

  20. In re: Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation (D. Conn Mar. 23, 2015). In: Connecticut USDCo, ed. No. 3:14-md-2516. (Bridgeport, CT: District Court of Connecticut; 2015).

  21. In re: Cipro Cases I & II (Cal. May 7, 2015). S198616. (San Diego, CA: San Diego County Superior Court; 2015).

  22. See e.g., King Drug Co. of Florence v. Cephalon, Inc. (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015).

  23. FTC. Abbvie, Inc., 2:14-cv-05151. In: Commission FT, ed: Federal Trade Commission; 2014:41.

  24. Kleinrock, M. The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook Through 2016 (IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, Parsippany, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Statista. Selected top branded biologic drugs in the United States that will go generic by 2015, by revenue (in billion U.S. dollars). http://www.statista.com/statistics/277480/top-branded-biologic-drugs-in-the-us-going-generic-until-2015/ (2015).

  26. Statista. Selected top branded drugs in the United States that will go generic by 2016, by revenue (in billion US dollars) http://www.statista.com/statistics/277458/top-branded-drugs-in-the-us-going-generic-until-2016/ (2015).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swati Shah, Matthew A. Silva and Michael J. Malloy are at MCPHS University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.,

    Swati Shah, Matthew A Silva & Michael J Malloy

Authors
  1. Swati Shah
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew A Silva
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J Malloy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew A Silva.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, S., Silva, M. & Malloy, M. Are reverse payments and pay-for-delay settlements business as usual or an anticompetitive practice?. Nat Biotechnol 34, 716–719 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3627

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3627

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research