You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Business

  • State on forefront of CPA training
    If you want to find the latest trends in food, fashion or fitness, head to the coasts.
  • China's big gamblers lured from troubled Macau
    HONG KONG – China’s high-spending gamblers are looking to bet outside Macau amid a government assault on corruption and extravagance, and that’s boosting casinos from the Philippines to the Las Vegas Strip.
  • Alibaba a symbol of China's tech giants
    BEIJING – Alibaba Group’s U.S. stock offering is a wake-up call about an emerging wave of technology giants in China’s state-dominated economy.
Advertisement

High court mulls drug deals

Generic delays profit both sides, but cost consumers

– Supreme Court justices appeared troubled Monday over whether to stop deals between pharmaceutical corporations and their generic drug competitors that the government says could keep cheaper forms of medicine from American consumers for longer periods of time.

Justices heard arguments from the Justice Department against what the government calls “pay-for-delay” deals or “reverse settlements.”

Such deals arise when generic companies file a challenge at the Food and Drug Administration to the patents that give brand-name drugs a 20-year monopoly. The generic drugmakers aim to prove the patent is flawed or otherwise invalid, so they can launch a generic version well before the patent ends.

Brand-name drugmakers then usually sue the generic companies, which sets up what could be years of expensive litigation. When the two sides aren’t certain who will win, they often reach a compromise deal that allows the generic company to sell its cheaper copycat drug in a few years – but years before the drug’s patent would expire.

Often, that settlement comes with a sizable payment from the brand-name company to the generic drugmaker.

Drugmakers say the settlements protect their interests but also benefit consumers by bringing inexpensive copycat medicines to market years earlier than they would arrive in any case generic drugmakers took to trial and lost.

But federal officials counter that such deals add billions to the drug bills of American patients and taxpayers, compared with what would happen if the generic companies won the lawsuits and could begin marketing right away.

A study by RBC Capital Markets Corp. of 371 cases during 2000-09 found brand-name companies won 89 at trial against 82 won by generic drugmakers. Another 175 ended in settlement deals, and 25 were dropped.

The Obama administration, backed by consumer groups and the American Medical Association, wants the court to stop the deals because it says they profit the drug companies but harm consumers by adding $3.5 billion annually to their drug bills.

“What the brand name is attempting to purchase is protection from the possibility that it will have its patent invalidated, and it will suffer a large competitive advantage,” Justice Department lawyer Malcolm L. Stewart told the justices.

What if a brand-name drug company is making $100 million, and a generic drug company says its product will reduce that to $10 million, so both companies agree that the brand name company would give the generic company $25 million to stay off the market, asked Justice Elena Kagan. “It’s clear what’s going on here is that they’re splitting monopoly profits, and the person who’s going to be injured are all the consumers out there,” Kagan said.

AP Business Writer Linda A. Johnson in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this story.

Advertisement