Pay-For-Delay Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against Pharma Company Dismissed

from the monopolies-galore dept

Last year, we wrote about the rise of pay-for-delay programs being run by big pharmaceutical firms to use patent lawsuits as a cover to pay off generic drug makers to prevent them from competing in the market. We were pretty disappointed that a part of health care reform that would have outlawed such deals got dropped, but figured that these still seemed like anticompetitive actions that the FTC could deal with.

Well, that might not work either. Joe Mullin points out that one such lawsuit suggesting that some of these deals were anticompetitive has been tossed out. The specifics here are a bit more complex -- as the deal that the big pharma, Schering-Plough (now owned by Merck) worked out with two generic drug makers was technically structured as a "license deal" where Schering got to license drugs from those generic drugmakers -- even if it never really did so. It still provided some amount of "cover." Furthermore, the agreement not to introduce the generics in the market only occurred during the time when Schering's drug was still covered by the patent. So, really, there was some dispute as to whether or not the generic actually violated the patent or not -- but since the ruling was not about determining that fact, just whether the actions were anti-competitive, the judge concluded that there wasn't enough evidence of any anticompetitive behavior.

So, basically, the only reason this wasn't anticompetitive was because it all happened under a government-granted monopoly. Talk about ironic, right? Because there's a monopoly, the company doesn't get labeled a monopolist. Isn't the patent system great?

This ruling is unfortunate for a variety of reasons. You can see why generic drug makers agree to these deals: it's either go through an expensive fight to put a drug on the market, or get out of the lawsuit and get paid a ton of money for nothing. Not hard to make that decision. But the end result is anti-competitive, in that it allows big pharma firms to keep the prices jacked up very high on their drugs, much to the detriment of everyone else.

Filed Under: anti-trust, pharma
Companies: schering-plough

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 8:04am


    When said companies significantly occupy the same market, the justice dept (usually) reviews and decides if it is allowed.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.