• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Who Really Pays for the Delay?

Submitted by Lana Khoury on January 24, 2013 – 12:05 AM66127 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F01%2F24%2Fwho-really-pays-for-the-delay%2FWho+Really+Pays+for+the+Delay%3F2013-01-24+05%3A05%3A13Lana+Khouryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6612

Assorted Pills, Capsules, and TabletsA recent report by the Federal Trade Commission reveals an increase in the controversial “pay-for-delay” patent settlements between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and their generic counterparts.  The controversy stems from the large payments by brand-name companies to generic manufacturers in an effort postpone or prevent the introduction of the generic drugs on the market.

The Supreme Court has stepped in by agreeing to review the current FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals case.  The FTC takes the stance that drug producers have sidestepped competition by offering such patent settlements, reports Bloomberg.  Further opposing these deals are advocacy groups, who argue that these delays leave consumers without cheaper alternatives for too long, forcing them to buy only those drugs created by the brand-name manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical companies argue that generic drugs infringe on their patents and threaten innovation.  As a result of the Hatch-Waxman Act, a company that submits the first application with the Food and Drug Administration to sell a certain generic drug receives exclusive rights to sell that drug for six months, if approved.  Often once the application is submitted, lawsuits are filed by brand-name manufacturers claiming patent infringement. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents major brand-name companies, counters the FTC’s claims and argue that these settlements enhance innovation and encourage competition, especially since brand-name companies spend about $1.3 billion to produce a new drug.

Law360 reports on the major criticism of the settlements from many in Washington, including Senators Amy Klobucher and Chuck Grassley, who have vowed to renew previous efforts to ban such deals.  The FTC reports the deals are up from twenty-eight in 2011 to forty in 2012, necessitating a ban, claims Sen. Klobuchar. She stated, “I have long supported efforts to prevent this anti-consumer practice and this new report highlights the need for legislation to make sure people have access to the drugs they need at a price they can afford.”  Sen. Grassley similarly pledged to provide a legislative remedy while the Supreme Court considers the case in an effort to protect consumers.

Similar class action lawsuits have been filed against major pharmaceutical companies based on the pay-for-delay issue, including the most recent against AstraZeneca.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Lana Khoury

Lana Khoury is a part-time 1L at American University Washington College of Law with an interest in Intellectual Property, and specifically Patent Law. She is a junior blogger for the IP Brief and earned her B.S. in Biology from the University of California, Riverside.

Lana Khoury has written 6 posts for the IPB.

66127 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F01%2F24%2Fwho-really-pays-for-the-delay%2FWho+Really+Pays+for+the+Delay%3F2013-01-24+05%3A05%3A13Lana+Khouryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6612 »

  • The Continuing Saga of Reverse Payment Patent Litigation says:
    January 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

    [...] Who Really Pays for the Delay? [...]

    Reply to this comment »
  • see more says:
    February 6, 2013 at 12:03 AM

    Great post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and
    I’m impressed! Very useful info specially the last phase :) I handle such info a lot. I used to be looking for this particular info for a long time. Thanks and good luck.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Pit 36 says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:53 PM

    Pharmaceutical companies have more power than we thought. Lobbyists – for me.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Scotty says:
    February 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    My programmer is trying to convince me to move to .net

    from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the costs.

    But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a number

    of websites for about a year and am concerned about

    switching to another platform. I have heard good things about blogengine.

    net. Is there a way I can import all my wordpress posts into it?

    Any help would be really appreciated!

    Reply to this comment »
  • Gonzalo Gutierrez says:
    February 20, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    They can't leave the consumers all alone, forcing them to buy a really expensive product is abuse of power, they shouldn't allow this kind of deals at all, the generic companies have the right to be selling their products to the people, whoever wants to buy the more expensive version of the product can go ahead and do so.

    Reply to this comment »
  • POF says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:57 AM

    Great Blog!

    Reply to this comment »
  • RockNRollDude says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM

    What a crock of Sheet these Pharmaceutical companies are. The consumers pay, of course!
    I'm a Rockaholic and a RockNRollDude.
    Peace + Love!
    Rock N Roll Dude

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Microsoft Claims Victory Against Motorola Mobility’s German Lawsuit by Using a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order Issued by a U.S. Judge in a Contract Dispute Live Former Lead Singer Ed Kowalczyk Sued by his Own Band Canadian Supreme Court Voids Pfizer’s Viagra Patent JPK Paris 75: A Geographically Deceptive Mark New Restrictions on Pay-for-Delay Generic Deals Pass in the House Patents & Politics Keep Off Kardashians! Kim Kardashian Sues The Gap Over Alleged Misappropriation of Celebrity Persona Fashion World Draws Inspiration from Navajo Art, Provokes Lawsuit Nobody Walks All Over Tory Burch: Shoe Designer Sues over Monogram Logo A Frustrated Posner Has Spoken: Apple v. Motorola Dismissed With Prejudice Jailbreaking Exemption to Expire in 2012 New Available Positions on the AU IP Brief J.K. Rowling's
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License