Pharma Dealt Blow As Supreme Court Declines To Hear Pay-To-Delay Case
The Supreme Court in 2012 left open to interpretation whether a cash payment in pay-to-delay deals was the only sort of arrangement that generated antitrust concern. But by declining to hear the appeal of a ruling that says the concern goes beyond cash the court is effectively settling the matter. In other news, the oral arguments for the CRISPR patent case are set for the beginning of December.
Supreme Court Lets Pay-To-Delay Ruling Against Pharma Stand
In a move that should settle a highly contentious legal issue, the US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a ruling that said cash payments are not the only litmus test for determining whether a patent settlement between drug makers deserves antitrust scrutiny. The case focused on a so-called pay-to-delay deal between Teva Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline. In these arrangements, a brand-name drug maker reaches a settlement with a generic rival in exchange for ending patent litigation and an agreement for launching a copycat medicine at a future date. The Federal Trade Commission has argued the deals are anti-competitive and cost Americans about $3.5 billion annually in higher health care costs. (Silverman, 11/7)
CRISPR Patent Case Headed For Oral Arguments Soon
It may not be Game 7 of the World Series, but biotech and patent law wonks, mark your calendars: Oral arguments in the fight over who deserves the key patent on the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology are set for next month. Come 10 a.m. on Dec. 6, the parties in the case will be able to present 20-minute arguments — as well as rebut the other side for five minutes — before three US Patent and Trademark Office judges in Alexandria, Va. The judges will also be able to grill the parties on what they have filed in their voluminous motions. (Joseph, 11/7)