Did you know that pharmaceutical companies regularly pay other pharmaceuticals not to manufacture generic versions of their products? I have to admit that it never occurred to me that this would be legal, but the Supreme Court has again chosen not to consider a case that an Appeals Court decided in favor of the drugmakers-- Arkansas Carpenter's Health and Welfare Fund v. Bayer.
The courts continue to buy the argument that these "reverse payments" are not anti-competitive, but instead are the result of the patent-holders' desire for legal certainty. And partly, the courts have followed the advise of the executive branch. But Scotusblog reports there's a new sheriff in town:
On Monday, in a case directly related to the one the Justices turned aside on June 22, the Obama Administration’s Justice Department took a strong stand, arguing that such “reverse payments” are probably illegal under antitrust law, especially if they involve a large payment. In the case at issue, the patent holder paid $349 million to the maker of a generic version of “Cipro,” a brand-name antibiotic.
Also see PatentlyO for a detailed view of the above case. Right-wingers like to characterize this Supreme Court as liberal & activist, even though seven of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents. The truth is that the Supreme Court is remarkably pro-corporate.
Comments