United States: California Supreme Court Decision In Cipro Highlights The Lack Of Predictability In Antitrust Jurisprudence And Counseling

On May 7, 2015, the Supreme Court of California issued an opinion in In re Cipro Cases I & II, a case centered on pay-to-delay settlements between drug makers and generic manufacturers. The Court found the existence of an issue of fact as to whether a settlement in which the branded manufacturer paid generic manufacturers to stay out of the market until the expiration of the patent on the branded drug violated California state antitrust law. At issue in the case was a 1997 settlement agreement between Bayer and Barr Pharmaceuticals, pursuant to which Bayer paid Barr approximately $400 million to delay marketing a generic version of Cipro – a drug produced by Bayer – until Bayer's patent on Cipro expired in late 2003.

The legality of pay-to-delay settlements and the relationship between patent law and antitrust law was previously examined in the United States Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. In Actavis, as a matter of federal law, the United States Supreme Court refused to find that reverse payment settlements made by a brand manufacturer to a generic manufacturer to resolve pending patent litigation were presumptively unlawful under federal antitrust law, opining that such bright line rules are only appropriate when the anticompetitive effects of a challenged practice are readily apparent – and that pay-to-delay settlements do not meet that criterion. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, directing the Circuit Court to analyze the potential anticompetitive effects of reverse payment settlements under a rule of reason approach, pursuant to which the court should balance the competing interests of federal antitrust law and patent law.

The United States Supreme Court's holding in Actavis, however, only addressed the extent to which pay-to-delay settlements should be assessed under federal antitrust law, necessarily leaving open the question as to how such settlements would be viewed in the context of various states' antitrust laws. Typically, states do follow suit with federal antitrust policy in the interest of consistency and predictability of outcome. A decision suggesting a different result under state antitrust law than under federal law raises issues concerning counseling: Can an attorney recommend a pay-to-delay settlement that is subject to challenge under state, as opposed to federal, law?

In Cipro, the Supreme Court of California analyzed the settlement under what it called a "structured rule of reason approach" which requires a third-party plaintiff to establish four elements in order to make out its prima facie argument under the Cartwright Act: (1) the settlement includes a limit on the settling generic challenger's entry into the market; (2) the settlement includes cash or equivalent financial consideration flowing from the brand to the generic challenger; and the consideration exceeds (3) the value of goods and services other than any delay in market entry provided by the generic challenger to the brand, as well as (4) the brand's expected remaining litigation costs absent settlement. The court explained that once a third-party plaintiff establishes these elements, the burden shifts to the defendants to produce evidence of the collateral goods and services provided by the generic challenger to the brand and the brand manufacturer's expected litigation costs absent settlement. The Cipro court held that if the defendants make this showing, the burden of persuasion shifts back to the third-party plaintiff, which must prove that the amount of the settlement at issue exceeds the combined value of the collateral goods and services and litigation costs.

Although the Supreme Court of California claims that its holding in Cipro "is in harmony with Actavis, which offered only broad outlines and explicitly left to other courts the task of developing a framework for analyzing the anticompetitive effects of reverse payment patent settlements," there are significant differences between the two decisions that are very material from a client counseling standpoint. For example, whereas the Court in Actavis explicitly rejected the notion of analyzing reverse payment patent settlements under bright-line or presumptive standards, the Supreme Court of California's holding in Cipro requires the use of such standards. Indeed, under Cipro, if a plaintiff can establish that the amount of the proposed settlement exceeds the combined value of the collateral goods and services provided by the generic challenger to the brand and the brand's expected remaining litigation costs absent settlement, the burden shifts to the defendants to make the Herculean (and perhaps impossible) showing that the settlement actually promotes competition rather than hinders it. Given the extreme unlikeliness that defendants will be able to make such a showing (assuming they want to take on the litigation risk at all by reaching such a settlement), it appears that in Cipro, the Supreme Court of California effectively adopted precisely the type of bright-line rule that the United States Supreme Court rejected in Actavis. Moreover, unlike the Court in Actavis, in Cipro, the court held that evidence concerning the validity of the brand manufacturer's patent is immaterial to the analysis of whether a particular reverse payment settlement violates antitrust law.

Predictability is an important value in law, particularly in antitrust law. Conduct that can be viewed as anticompetitive in one light is often the quite competitive in another light (predatory pricing, discount programs, vertical integration, etc.). Making sure that rules are applied consistently and logically is important to our business community and to our ability as lawyers to intelligently and accurately counsel our clients.

A recent amicus brief from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) illustrates the point and the problem, albeit in a different context. NAM is encouraging the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Motorola Mobility, LLC v. AU Optronics, a case involving the extent to which U.S. antitrust laws apply to certain foreign transactions. There is a current conflict between how the Seventh and Ninth Circuits interpret the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (FTAIA). 15 U.S.C. § 6a. NAM takes no position on what the right outcome should be, but does express, most eloquently, the problem caused by lack of predictability and risk of inconsistent outcome:

Needless to say, the risks (or benefits) of potential U.S. antitrust liability (or protection) and the financial consequences of getting it wrong are tremendous. Whether it is foreign suppliers or affiliates of U.S. companies seeking to minimize their legal risk or U.S. manufacturers seeking the protection of U.S. antitrust laws for their imports of intermediate manufacturing inputs, it is important for companies to know precisely how to accomplish such goals or to more effectively incorporate the risks and costs of foregoing those goals in the bargaining process.

Whatever the rule turns out to be, businesses must know such rule in advance in order to bargain for its application or avoidance. While bargaining is, of course, possible in situations of uncertainty, it is far more time consuming, expensive, and of uncertain effect when the application of the antitrust laws remains a matter of chance and judicial venue. The transaction costs of such uncertainty (and the consequences of error) are so high that they could put a meaningful damper on trade and increase the price of goods for U.S. manufacturers and consumers alike.

Amicus brief at 7-8.

In Cipro, as the conflict is between federal and state law, the United States Supreme Court cannot be expected to resolve any dispute1. If a pay-to-delay settlement is violative of any law (particularly the law of California, the largest state in the Union) then it is effectively something that any lawyer has to consider long and hard before counseling a client to proceed with (The Supreme Court's decision in Actavis suggested that parties could proceed with such settlements, albeit with caution). If so, how can anyone ever settle a case involving the intersection of intellectual property rights and antitrust? Are all such cases to be fought through trial and through appeals, or is there some way for the parties to cut the litigation Gordian Knot without running afoul of Cipro? The Supreme Court of California's ruling in Cipro, therefore, presents a significant problem, and one that cannot be remedied except by the California legislature.

It also stands as a timely reminder that when analyzing the risk that a planned course of action could subject a party to legal liability, a potential litigant must not only perform such an analysis under federal law but also under applicable state law. Although federal preemption law does not permit state laws to conflict with federal laws, potential litigants cannot assume that state courts will apply state laws in the same manner that federal courts have applied analogous federal laws. The states are generally free to apply their own laws in different fashion than the analogous federal antitrust law, and the differences can be quite material. For example, despite the fact that in 2007 in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS Inc., the United States Supreme Court applied a rule of reason approach in its analysis of whether resale price agreements violate federal antitrust law, in 2012, in O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., the Kansas Supreme Court held that any arrangement, contract, agreement, or combination "designed to" advance, reduce, or control prices, or that "tends to" advance, reduce, or control prices, is illegal and constitutes a per se violation of Kansas state antitrust law. Accordingly, cases like Cipro and the Kansas Leegin decision present cautionary tales for all who counsel clients on antitrust matters. State laws, as well as unresolved federal conflicts, remove predictability from the legal landscape.


1 Though conflict preemption may always be argued, even in the absence of express or implied preemption, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the viability of such arguments when applied to differences between federal and state antitrust statutes in California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989).

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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.