FTC Testifies Before Senate Armed With New Pharmaceutical Patent Report: Paying Off Generics To Prevent Competition With Brand Name Drugs Should Be Prohibited
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.17.07
Continuing with its efforts to prevent “exclusive payment settlements” (aka “reverse payments”) by name brand drug manufacturers to keep generic competitors from entering the market, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought its case to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary today. Exclusive payment settlements occur where a brand name manufacturer settles a patent dispute with a generic manufacturer by paying a specified amount in exchange for an agreement that the generic manufacturer will not enter the market for a period of time. According to 2005 court decisions, these settlements are perfectly legal as a valid exercise of patent power. Jon Leibowitz, Commissioner of the FTC, testified that the court decisions protect patent rights at the expense of consumers, because they provide a roadmap for pharmaceutical companies to share monopoly profits instead of competing.
An FTC study also issued today reveals that in recent years, the number of exclusive payment settlements is on the rise. Specifically, the FTC’s FY 2006 report on pharmaceutical patents, found that in 14 of 28 final settlements, generic manufacturers received compensation from brand name manufacturers and agreed to stay out of the market for a period of time. In prior years, the numbers were significantly lower: 3 of 11 in FY 2005 and 0 of 14 in FY 2004.
Mr. Leibowitz testified that “[t]he increased costs resulting from anticompetitive agreements that delay generic competition harm all those who pay for prescription drugs: individual consumers; the federal government, which spends substantial sums under the new Medicare Part D program; state governments trying to provide access to health care with limited public funds; and American businesses striving to compete in a global economy.”
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary also heard from those on the other side of the debate, including the CEO of PhRMA, Bill Tauzin. The text of his statement is not yet available.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
