Thursday, January 13, 2011

Bayer's CIPRO and pay-to-delay

A story titled Calif AG calls for better access to generic drugs begins:

California's top prosecutor is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to bar drug companies from making agreements with competitors to keep quiet about generic versions of their brand name drugs.

HealthCenter.BNA put the matter in the following way:

A group of 32 state attorneys general, led by California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris (D), Jan. 7 pressed the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that held that “reverse payments” in drug patent settlements do not constitute per se violations of antitrust law (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Bayer AG, U.S., No. 10-762, amicus brief filed 1/7/11).

The case Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Bayer AG , which relates to CIPRO, had been heard in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. One wonders why the New York AG wasn't leading the charge. In fact, neither New York nor New Jersey were among the 32, but Texas and Mississippi were. California and Mississippi, happy together, as the "new poor" and "old poor" states.

See previous IPBiz post
en banc CA2 denies rehearing in Bayer/Teva CIPRO settlement

Of the CA2 case:

Following disposition of this appeal on April 29, 2010, Plaintiffs-Appellants Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc.; Arthur's Drug Store, Inc.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; and Rite Aid Corporation filed a petition for rehearing in banc. An active judge requested a poll on whether to rehear the case in banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc is hereby DENIED.


Blogger New said...

Not to mention the fact that the FTC has had it in for pay-for-delay patent litigation settlements for a while, and has presented studies indicating that such agreements can cost taxpayers many billions of dollars. Considering statistics showing that the SCOTUS rules on the side of the feds the vast majority of the time, I'd hazard a guess that the FTC's arguments will carry quite a bit of weight here, and that (in the event cert is granted) the SCOTUS may rule that reverse-payment arrangements will have to be at least limited, if not stopped altogether.

5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home