Canada: Competition Bureau Sets Out Preliminary Views On Patent Agreement Settlement Enforcement

On September 23, 2014, John Pecman, the Commissioner of Competition, delivered the keynote address at the George Mason University Pharma Conference. The Commissioner spoke about how the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) approaches the interface between competition law and intellectual property (IP), and the Bureau's enforcement work in Canada's pharmaceutical industry, including its treatment of reverse-payment patent settlements or pay-for-delay agreements under the Competition Act (the Act).

The Commissioner's speech coincided with the Bureau's release of a white paper entitled Patent Litigation Settlement Agreements: A Canadian Perspective. The white paper provides information on Canada's pharmaceutical industry and regulatory regime, identifies the provisions of the Act that may apply to reverse-payment settlements, and explains the Bureau's preliminary views on how the Act could apply to reverse-payment settlements. Both the Commissioner's speech and the white paper make it clear that the Bureau will consult with stakeholders during a forthcoming second stage of public consultations for revising the Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines (the IPEGs) to develop appropriate enforcement guidelines.

Despite the Bureau's assurances that its views on patent settlement agreement enforcement are preliminary and that it will continue to consult with interested parties, the Bureau's approach to patent settlements, which departs in significant ways from the approach taken in the U.S., is certain to be controversial.

Competition Law and the Pharmaceutical Industry

Under the Act, matters involving IP or IP rights may be referred to the Attorney General under section 32 or examined under the general provisions of the Act, including the criminal conspiracy provision (section 45), the civil competitor collaboration provision (section 90.1) or the civil abuse of dominance provision (section 79). Generally speaking, the Bureau will use the Act's general provisions for matters raising competition concerns that involve something more than the mere exercise of the IP right, and section 32 will be used where the matters involve the mere exercise of the IP right and nothing else.

Both in the Commissioner's speech and the white paper, the Bureau reiterated its view that competition law and IP law have complementary roles in promoting a healthy and efficient economy. The Bureau also explained its recent interest in the pharmaceutical industry, which is spurred in part by the significant proportion of total healthcare spending in Canada that pharmaceuticals comprise and the role that generic drugs play in fostering the benefits of competition. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the Bureau noted, health care spending accounts for 11.2 per cent of Canada's economy and, of that, pharmaceutical spending accounts for 16.3 per cent. Of the pharmaceutical spending, almost 85 per cent is spent on prescription drugs.

In his speech, the Commissioner emphasized that generics offer attractive cost-savings to Canadian consumers and private and public drug plan providers. However, despite these cost-savings and despite representing two-thirds of retail prescriptions, less than a quarter of total prescription drug expenditures in Canada are for generics. The Bureau noted that this gap demonstrates how generics can save health care dollars, especially at a time when Canadian private and public sector organizations are struggling with how to provide first-rate, affordable services to an aging population and other citizens on fixed-incomes.

Both the Commissioner's speech and the white paper demonstrate that balancing IP rights and competition policy can be a challenging task. They also raise the question as to whether, notwithstanding the above-noted reiteration of the complementary roles of IP and competition laws in promoting a healthy and efficient economy, the Bureau intends to resolve such conflicts in favour of competition law to the potential detriment of IP laws. Both the Commissioner's speech and the white paper focus on how generics promote competition in the pharmaceutical industry, while paying little attention to the benefits of branded products and the role they play in the industry, including with respect to innovation leading to new pharmaceutical products.

Distinguishing the Canadian and U.S. Regulatory Regimes

The Commissioner and the Bureau's white paper discussed several differences between the Canadian and U.S. regulatory regimes governing the entry of generic pharmaceuticals, and disputed any suggestion that these differences necessitate "caution in—or even abdication of—efforts to police reverse-payment settlements in Canada." Differences between the regimes include:

The notification system: Unlike the U.S., where all potential reverse-payment agreements or pay-for-delay settlements must be reported, Canada does not have a notification requirement for such settlements. The Bureau would like to see a similar notification system in Canada that would give the Bureau substantive information about settlement agreements and enhance its ability to deal with any anticompetitive effects of such agreements.

The 180-day exclusivity period: Under the U.S.' Hatch-Waxman Act, the first generic to challenge a brand's patent receives 180-days of market exclusivity from other generics. Since Canada does not have an equivalent market exclusivity period, some commentators have suggested that reverse-payment agreements in Canada require less scrutiny since generics do not have strong incentives to challenge patents. The Bureau disagrees with this view, and the Commissioner stated evidence in Canada shows that generics have, in large numbers, filed patent challenges.

Non-dispositive Nature of Prohibition Proceedings and Section 8 Damages: Two aspects of Canada's regulatory regime not present in the U.S. are the non-dispositive nature of prohibition proceedings and damages under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the PM(NOC) Regulations). Since prohibition proceedings brought by a brand under the PM(NOC) Regulations determine only if the generic's allegations of patent invalidity or non-infringement are justified for the purposes of the PM(NOC) Regulations, and do not foreclose a subsequent claim for patent infringement by the brand, they are characterized as non-dispositive. Conversely, if the brand is unsuccessful in the prohibition proceeding, section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations allows the generic to sue the brand for any loss suffered during the period it was foreclosed from marketing its product as a result of the prohibition proceedings. Together, the non-dispositive nature of prohibition proceedings and the availability of section 8 damages create a risk of "double jeopardy." While the Bureau acknowledges that the Canadian legislation presents a higher degree of legal risk for both branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers than they face in the U.S., it also says that this risk should not preclude competition law enforcement in respect of reverse-payment settlements.

Entry Date versus Pay-for-Delay: In the U.S., the Bureau notes that settlements have been treated differently if they involve only a date for generic entry, as compared to a payment for delayed entry. Before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Actavis, a number of patent settlement cases litigated in the U.S. resulted in court decisions deeming these agreements legal if they were within the scope of the patent. The Actavis decision also noted that early entry dates promote competition whereas pay-for-delay agreements maintain patentee-set price levels. In contrast, the Bureau has said that it will not distinguish between entry date and pay-for-delay agreements, taking the position that the Act applies to all settlement agreements that allow generic entry before the patent expiry date, regardless of the presence of a reverse payment.

Review of Patent Settlement Agreements: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Actavis that reverse-payment settlements are subject to a "rule of reason" analysis, which, in contrast to a per se analysis, requires an assessment of the competitive impact of the settlement. In contrast, the Bureau says it may review patent settlement agreements under the criminal or civil provisions of the Act, only the latter of which contain a competitive effects requirement analogous to the U.S. "rule of reason" analysis. By leaving the door open to application of the per se criminal conspiracy provision in section 45 of the Act, the Bureau's approach substantially – and controversially – departs from the U.S. approach to patent settlements.

The differences between Canada and the U.S., therefore, now clearly go beyond differences in their regulatory regimes to include differences in the application of each country's competition/antitrust laws. Of particular note in this regard is the acceptance by U.S. courts of entry-date patent settlements and a rule of reason standard for pay-for-delay settlements, in contrast to the Bureau's stated openness to reviewing (and potentially challenging) any patent settlement including possibly under the Act's per se criminal cartel provision. In an era where Canada and the U.S.' competition and antitrust practices are becoming more aligned, it is surprising that the Bureau has so clearly and significantly differentiated the Canadian approach to patent agreement settlement from the U.S. Indeed, having refuted the suggestion that differences in Canada's regulatory regime relative to the U.S. regime may justify more lenient enforcement in Canada, the Bureau appears to be signaling an even stronger approach in Canada than in the U.S.

Implications of the Bureau's "Made in Canada" Approach to Patent Settlements

Why the Bureau considered it is necessary to signal a stronger enforcement approach in Canada is unclear, as are the merits of this divergence as a matter of competition (and broader legal) policy. The Commissioner seems to have anticipated the controversial nature of the Bureau's approach, stating in his speech that "many of you in this room may find our approach somewhat surprising, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Actavis." As noted previously, the Actavis decision, consistent with some lower court decisions, distinguished settlement agreements providing only early generic entry from so-called pay-for-delay agreements. Whereas, according to the court, a pay-for-delay settlement "keeps prices at patentee-set levels, potentially producing the full patent-related ... monopoly return [and] dividing ... [it] between the challenged patentee and the patent challenger," entry-date agreements "would ... bring about competition ... to the consumer's benefit." In effect, therefore, the court could be viewed as having considered the non-presence of a reverse payment in an entry-date settlement as a basis for forgoing antitrust scrutiny of settlements

The Bureau has rejected such an approach. According to the Bureau, the Act applies to all settlement agreements that allow generic entry before the patent expiry date, regardless of the presence of a reverse payment. In addition to ignoring the fact that entry-date settlements remove the above-noted concern about the brand and generic sharing monopoly returns, such an approach risks undermining the broader legal principle that settlement of litigation should be encouraged. An entry-date settlement represents a compromise between the parties based on their respective assessments of the strength of the disputed patent, and potential litigation risks and costs that each faces without a settlement. In addition to suggesting the Bureau is better placed than the parties to assess such risks and benefits, the Bureau's approach, by opening the door to competition law scrutiny of all patent settlements, will discourage settlements by introducing uncertainty into the settlement process. Setting aside the issue of whether patent settlements should be subject to competition law scrutiny at all, if Actavis is interpreted to mean only settlements with a monetary payment should be subject to antitrust scrutiny, then the U.S. approach has the merit of providing certainty that entry-date patent settlements will not be subject to antitrust scrutiny.  

Arguably the most controversial aspect of the Bureau's approach is the Bureau's stated willingness to review patent settlements under the Act's per se criminal conspiracy provision, which departs from the "rule of reason" analysis used in the U.S. following Actavis. The Bureau says it will review patent settlement agreements under the criminal conspiracy provision (section 45), the civil competitor collaboration provision (section 90.1) or the civil abuse of dominance provision (section 79). In terms of when it will use section 45, the Bureau's Competitor Collaboration Guidelines (the "CCGs") state that it will review only agreements that create "naked restraints" on competition under the per se criminal conspiracy provision and that other agreements will be reviewed under the Act's civil provisions, each of which requires a substantial prevention or lessening of competition. In his speech, the Commissioner further commented that inquiries under the civil provisions will likely be conducted under civil agreements provision rather than the abuse of dominance provision. He did not, however, articulate what would cause the Bureau to review a patent settlement under section 79 rather than section 90.1, notwithstanding the significance of such determination insofar as the use of section 79 (but not section 90.1) would expose the parties to potential administrative monetary penalties in an amount up to $10 million.

Given the Bureau's previously noted position in the CCGs that section 45 should be limited to so-called "naked restraints" on competition, which the Bureau defines as "restraints that are not implemented in furtherance of a legitimate collaboration, strategic alliance of joint venture", the suggestion that the patent settlements may be reviewed under the Act's per se criminal conspiracy provision will raise concerns about whether the Bureau is signaling a broader approach to the enforcement of section 45, not only in the pharmaceutical sector but more generally. It is quite possible that this was not the Bureau's intent, and that it merely intended to ensure that parties cannot escape per se condemnation for sham settlements or settlements that go beyond the scope of the patents or litigation in question. If so, however, it would have been preferable for the Bureau to follow an approach similar to that set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Actavis by stating that it will review patent settlements under the civil competitor collaboration or abuse of dominance positions, both of which (like the U.S. Supreme Court's rule of reason approach) require a competitive effects analysis. If it felt it necessary to do so, the Bureau could have proceeded to add the proviso that the settlements are not a sham and do not go beyond the scope of the patents or litigation in question. Instead, by placing section 45 on the same level as the civil provisions, and even arguably suggesting it will be given primacy over them, the Bureau risks creating a chilling effect in respect of competitor collaborations that could go well beyond the pharmaceutical industry.

The Commissioner was right to anticipate that many would be surprised by the Bureau's approach to patent settlements. The Bureau did depart from the U.S. approach, and it did so in important ways that signal a potentially stronger enforcement approach in Canada rather than the "cautionary" approach the Commissioner suggests that some may have been expecting. By asserting potential competition law scrutiny over all entry-date settlements and leaving the door open to potential per se condemnation, the Bureau has indeed carved out a uniquely Canadian approach. But has it done so at the expense of sound competition and broader legal policies?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions