United States: Supreme Court's Request For Views Of The United States On Cert. Petition In Lamictal "Reverse-Payment" Case Flags Potential Issues For Practitioners

Last Updated: June 15 2016
Article by Robert P. Reznick

On Monday, June 7, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in connection with a petition for certiorari filed by the U.S. subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline plc ("GSK") in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence, No. 15-1055.  The Supreme Court's request seems less directed to rethinking its seminal ruling in FTC v. Actavis on the lawfulness of "reverse-payment" settlements of Hatch-Waxman cases than to a concern that, in some specific ways, its decision may have created some unintended consequences.

King Drug involved the settlement of patent infringement litigation over a brand-name drug used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, Lamictal®, brought by GSK against Teva Pharmaceuticals under the framework of the Hatch-Waxman Act.  Among other features, the settlement gave Teva a license under GSK's patent and NDA for Lamictal® to enter the market prior to expiration of the patent in suit, and GSK agreed not to authorize another generic entrant during the period in which Teva would not face competition from any other FDA-approved generics.  Patent- and NDA-licensed generic entrants are referred to as "authorized generics" ("AGs"), as compared with generics that enter via the ANDA approval process.  The settlement term in which GSK agreed not to license its NDA to another generic manufacturer is colloquially referred to as a "No-AG agreement."  While estimates varied and issues of causation remained, there was no dispute that an additional Lamictal® AG would earn GSK some marginal revenue and reduce both Teva's volume of sales and the prevailing market price.

In its 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that certain "reverse-payment" settlements of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases could violate the antitrust laws, and were subject to review under the rule of reason.  As most relevant here, the Court concluded that antitrust concerns could be raised where the branded drug's manufacturer settled the case by providing the generic's manufacturer a "large and unexplained payment" tied to a delay in entry from the date of settlement.  The Court's concern was that the payment might be an improper agreement to delay entry and split the proceeds of an otherwise unjustified agreement to maintain the patent monopoly in a situation where there is an invalid, or arguably invalid, patent.

In 2015, a panel of the Third Circuit found the GSK-Teva settlement potentially to constitute a "large and unexplained payment," reversing the district court's dismissal of the case on grounds that the non-cash No-AG agreement could not be within the scope of Actavis.  The court of appeals did not dispute GSK's right to license its patent for Lamictal® as such, just its possible use as a means to eliminate a challenge to the patent: "[T]he fact that the Patent Act expressly authorizes licensing does not necessarily mean it also authorizes reverse payments to prevent generic competition."

At first blush, the decision does not appear controversial, as courts other than the district court below had uniformly found that the "payment" required by Actavis need not be in cash (although a number of courts, including the First Circuit in Loestrin, have required that a complaint provide a basis for quantifying the non-cash compensation allegedly transferred).  And, specifically, no court had found No-AG agreements outside the scope of Actavis.  Nor is there a conflict on this point between the two courts of appeals to have construed Actavis.  All that said, what motivated the Supreme Court to seek the views of the Solicitor General?  We can think of a few possible explanations.

First, the Lamictal case might be a good and much-needed vehicle for addressing the limitations of Actavis.  That opinion was rife with references to factors that would cause a reverse-payment settlement not to implicate antitrust law—including the definition of a "payment," the meaning of a "large" payment, what explanations can support all or some of an otherwise "large" reverse payment, and the range of pro-competitive effects that would be relevant in a rule of reason analysis.  But the Court explained almost none of them further, and expressly left the lower courts to fill in the blanks.  The Federal Trade Commission, for its part, through litigation and amicus briefs has been busy trying to push back virtually any suggestion of limits at all.  More than a dozen Hatch-Waxman settlements have been in litigation since Actavis was decided, and defining the scope of the Supreme Court's decision has been a struggle.  No-AG Agreements test a number of those limits.  Notably, they do not involve a direct transfer of compensation from Brand to Generic—although they can be seen both as a decision to forego income from an authorized generic and to permit the Generic to earn more in the marketplace.  Still, we doubt the fact of confusion and uncertainty, standing alone, would warrant an inquiry as to the views of the United States.

A more likely reason is another limit that the Court suggested but did not flesh out—that the antitrust laws not be applied so as to render unlawful "commonplace," "familiar," or "traditional" means of settling patent infringement cases.  GSK and Teva argued that one such form is the grant of an exclusive patent license (here, a semi-exclusive one because the Brand retains a right to use the patent).  Indeed, the National Association of Manufacturers filed an amicus brief to underscore the point that the Third Circuit had read Actavis so as to permit virtually any antitrust challenge to a settlement incorporating an exclusive license to survive a motion to dismiss, no matter what industry was involved.

A related point made by those favoring Supreme Court review was that a patentholder's right to license its patent is specifically authorized by  35 U.S.C. § 261.  Beyond the argument that the antitrust laws should not be read to circumscribe so closely a specific statutory grant, the Court in Actavis itself distinguished the dissent as having failed to "identify any patent statute that it understands to grant [a right to enter into reverse-payment settlements] to a patentee."  A similar point was made by counsel for the FTC at oral argument in Actavis, who distinguished "reverse payment" settlements from licenses "expressly authorized by the Patent Act."

Another interesting issue is that the 180-day exclusivity period is a financial incentive that Congress intended to encourage companies like Teva to challenge the patents of branded drugs (or to design around the patents).  In the early days of discussion about authorized generics, some (including some at the FTC) argued that Congress intended the 180-day exclusivity period to reward such patent challengers with six months of freedom from generic competition of any kind, including from AGs.  To the extent the purpose of the statutory exclusivity period is viewed in this way, an interesting argument can be made that the No-AG agreement merely preserves in place a benefit that Congress intended the generic manufacturer receive, and thus cannot be an element of an antitrust violation.  Not many cases discuss the point, but some hold that governmentally-enacted financial benefits (such as tariffs or subsidies by foreign governments) do not make the competitive playing field any less level even though they may permit certain companies to price at levels that others cannot profitably match.  See, e.g., Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 461 F. Supp. 384, 400 (D. Del. 1978) ("The antitrust laws were not intended as a sanctuary for those who cannot compete against lower prices be they the result of simple efficiency, economies of scale, cheap labor, technological expertise or anything other than commercially mischievous conduct. Thus, although plaintiff is injured by defendant's capability to offer lower prices as a result of foreign government subsidies to [plaintiff's competitor], the Court concludes that the antitrust laws do not provide a remedy for such loss.").

It seems to us that the Supreme Court might well want to know whether the Solicitor General believes that the Third Circuit's ruling will put a cloud over patent infringement settlements via exclusive or semi-exclusive license, and whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 provides some sort of safe harbor for No-AG agreements.  The FTC recently brought its first action based on the presence of a No-AG agreement in the Endo case, and that may suggest the Solicitor General will be unlikely to view the Third Circuit's decision with alarm and go out of his or her way to seek further review.

The SG's response is unlikely to arrive before the Fall, so a ruling on the petition will not likely occur until well into the Court's new term.

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.


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.