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 Topics
Related Articles
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
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.


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.


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