Declarations from generic drug makers alleged only possible future injury from implementation of the 2019 law that created a presumption that so-called “pay for delay” settlement agreements are anticompetitive.
A trade association for the generic pharmaceutical industry failed to demonstrate standing to challenge a California law that created a presumption that “reverse payment” settlement agreements regarding patent infringement claims between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies were anticompetitive and unlawful. None of the declarations submitted by trade association members alleged an intention to engage in such a settlement. Nor did they establish that they incurred economic injury due to complying with the law, such as by foregoing pay for delay settlements or litigating patent-infringement suits to judgment. Rather, the members alleged that they “likely would expect to be forced to litigate every pending patent-infringement lawsuit to judgment,” or that they “likely will stay [their] hand on many products and simply stay off the market until the relevant patents all expire.” These declarations alleged only “possible future injury” and failed to establish a substantial risk of harm (Association for Accessible Medicines v. Becerra, July 24, 2020, per curiam).
Case date: 24 July 2020
Case number: No. 20-15014
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
_____________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
Kluwer IP Law
The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?
Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.
