Pharmaceutical ‘Pay-for-Delay’ Reexamined: A Dwindling Practice or a Persistent Problem?

By Laura Karas, Gerard Anderson (Johns Hopkins University), & Robin Feldman (University of California)

The Supreme Court ruled in FTC v. Actavis that a delay in generic entry may be anticompetitive when part of a patent settlement that includes a large and otherwise unjustified value transfer to the generic company, termed a reverse payment patent settlement, or “pay-for-delay.” Following Actavis, drug companies have limited the size of reverse payments and have fashioned settlement terms that include more discreet categories of compensation to generic companies. In light of

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!