Teva Pharmaceutical will pay $1.2 billion to settle US antitrust charges in a long-running “pay for delay” case involving Cephalon, which Teva acquired in 2012, the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday.
Israel-based Teva, the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer, agreed to make the money available to compensate buyers, including drug wholesalers, pharmacies and insurers, who overpaid for Cephalon’s blockbuster sleep-disorder drug Provigil because of that company’s illegal conduct.
Under the settlement, Teva also agreed to a prohibition in all of its US operations on the type of anticompetitive patent settlements that Cephalon used to artificially inflate the price of Provigil, according to the FTC.
The settlement stems from a 2008 FTC lawsuit against Cephalon alleging that the company unlawfully protected its monopoly on prescription drug Provigil from competition through so called “reverse-payment” deals with four generic drugmakers in 2005-2006.
Cephalon allegedly sued the drugmakers for infringing its Provigil patent and later paid them more than $300 million combined to drop their patent challenges and pledge to withhold marketing their generic versions for six years, until April 2012.
The Teva settlement is the first FTC case resolved after the US Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that reverse-payment patent settlements are subject to US antitrust rules, the commission noted.
“Today’s landmark settlement is an important step in the FTC’s ongoing effort to protect consumers from anticompetitive pay for delay settlements, which burden patients, American businesses, and taxpayers with billions of dollars in higher prescription drug costs,” FTC chair Edith Ramirez said in a statement.
Full content: The New York Times
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Massachusetts AG Sues Insulin Makers and PBMs Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Apple and Amazon Avoid Mass Lawsuit in UK Over Alleged Collusion
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Top Agent Network Drops Antitrust Suit Against National Association of Realtors
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Weil, Gotshal & Manges Strengthens Antitrust Practice with New Partner
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Russian Court Imposes Hefty Fine on Google for Non-Compliance with Content Removal Orders
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand