United States: FTC And Teva Reach Global Settlement Of Reverse-Payment Charges

Last Updated: March 29 2019
Article by C. Scott Lent, Peter J. Levitas and Seth J. Wiener

For years the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been challenging so-called "reverse payment" agreements, where brand and generic pharmaceutical companies settle patent infringement claims with some alleged form of payment from the brand to the generic and some alleged amount of delay in generic entry. The FTC has filed three challenges against generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. or its now-subsidiaries in the last 10 years.1 On February 19, the FTC and Teva reached a global settlement of the FTC's outstanding claims against Teva in these three cases.

I. Background—The Three FTC Cases Against Teva

A. FTC v. Actavis

In 2006 generic manufacturer Watson Pharmaceuticals entered a settlement with branded manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals regarding Watson's generic AndroGel®, a prescription testosterone replacement drug. The parties agreed to an entry date for Watson's generic AndroGel and a payment associated with the settlement, and on the same day entered into a co-promotion agreement and a back-up supply manufacturing agreement for the drug. The FTC challenged the settlement and the separate agreements. It claimed that the patent settlement illegally delayed Watson's market entry and that the additional agreements were illegal side-agreements used to provide additional compensation for the delayed generic entry.2

The district court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that the agreements fell "within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent."3 In 2016, after Teva acquired the Watson business (which at the time was owned by Allergan and operated under the name Actavis), the US Supreme Court reversed and held that reverse payment agreements are to be scrutinized under the rule-of-reason, even if within the scope of the patent.4 The case was remanded, and trial against Solvay (now operating under the name AbbVie) and Actavis was scheduled to begin on March 4, 2019.5  

B. FTC v. AbbVie

In a separate AndroGel-related case, the FTC claimed that AbbVie6 and Besins Healthcare, which co-owned a patent used in branded AndroGel, had brought "sham" patent infringement litigation in 2011 against Teva and Perrigo Company. Both Teva and Perrigo were seeking FDA approval for their respective generic products,7 and both counterclaimed arguing that their respective products were "clearly outside the literal scope" of the patent at issue.8

Teva eventually agreed to settle the claims brought against it by AbbVie and Besins, abandon its "sham litigation" counterclaim, and not launch its generic AndroGel for an undisclosed period. In exchange, Teva received an authorized generic licensing deal for cholesterol drug TriCor®, another AbbVie branded product for which Teva had a generic in development.9 The FTC brought an action against AbbVie, Besins, and Teva, alleging that these agreements in combination constituted an illegal restraint of trade and an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC argued that the arrangement "only makes sense as a means to induce Teva to drop its patent challenge and refrain from competing with AndroGel for several years."10

In 2015 the district court granted the motion to dismiss the restraint of trade claim. The court rejected the FTC's allegation that the TriCor agreement constituted a reverse payment and found that the agreement actually promotes competition by allowing Teva to enter the market early.11 With respect to the "sham litigation" claim, in 2018 the district court ruled that AbbVie and Besins had "illegally and willfully maintained [their AndroGel] monopoly power through the filing of sham litigation."12 The FTC subsequently appealed the 2015 decision to the Third Circuit,13 where it remains pending.

C. FTC v. Allergan plc

The third FTC challenge involves Lidoderm®, a topical pain relief lidocaine patch manufactured by Endo Pharmaceuticals. The FTC alleged that Watson Laboratories and Watson Pharmaceuticals,14which were developing generic Lidoderm, settled patent challenges against Endo before the Watson entities launched their generic product.15 The FTC alleged that, under the terms of the settlement, Endo agreed not to market its own authorized generic (a "no-AG" agreement) for a limited time period and Endo provided Watson Pharmaceuticals' subsidiary Anda $96 million of Lidoderm patches at no cost.16

The FTC challenged the agreements in 2016, and settled with Endo in 2017.17 The FTC has indicated that the proposed settlement with Teva would "effectively end this litigation,"18 and dismissed the claims with prejudice two days after announcing the global settlement.19

II. The "Global" Settlement Terms

The FTC's recently announced settlement will resolve all claims against Teva in the three pending cases described above. The stipulated terms of the global settlement build on a 2015 settlement between Teva and the FTC. The FTC had alleged that Cephalon (which Teva acquired in 2012) had entered an unlawful agreement to delay entry of a generic competitor to Cephalon's sleep-disorder drug Provigil®. To settle the allegations, Teva agreed to pay $1.2 billion in disgorgement and for the next 10 years not enter into any settlements in which a branded manufacturer paid a generic manufacturer "not to research, develop, manufacture, market or sell" the relevant generic drug "for any period of time."20 This prohibition includes so-called "side deals," in which the branded manufacturer enters into separate business transactions with the generic manufacturer contemporaneous with or contingent on a patent infringement settlement.21

In the joint motion proposing the global settlement, the parties describe the proposed global settlement as one that "expands the general conduct prohibition in the Original Order [(i.e., the 2015 Cephalon settlement)]" to encompass "alleged reverse-payment agreements similar to those challenged in [Actavis, AbbVie, and Allergan]."22 The proposed global settlement thus includes a prohibition on "side deals" and in addition would "prohibit Cephalon or Teva from entering into agreements that include a 'No-AG Commitment,' which is a commitment by the brand company not to sell its own authorized generic version of the brand product for some period of time."23

The terms of the global settlement make a few other substantive changes to the existing obligations on Teva.24 In particular, the global settlement modifies some of the existing "carve outs" to the definition of a "payment." Under the proposed global settlement, an agreement by the branded manufacturer to offer exclusivity to the generic manufacturer now counts as a payment,25 but certain supply or materials agreements may not if the agreement (i) meets specified pricing conditions, (ii) is the only settlement agreement between branded and generic parties entered into during an Exclusion Period,26 and (iii) is submitted, along with certain other specified information, to the Monitor for review.27 Finally, the term of the global settlement is 10 years from the date of entry,28 which extends the period in which Teva must restrict its settlement activity.

If the proposed global settlement is accepted by the Cephalon court, all pending claims against Teva will be dismissed. However, the Commission has indicated that it plans to continue its appeal of the 2015 AbbVie decision regarding its claims against the branded manufacturers.29

III. Lessons from the Proposed Global Teva Settlement

The proposed global settlement may assist the FTC in its efforts to limit the use of reverse patent settlements in three ways.

First, this settlement creates an enforcement precedent prohibiting a number of brand-generic business agreements about which the FTC has long expressed concern and thus sends a signal to others in the industry that the FTC is willing to litigate if it finds similar conduct. Perhaps most important, the settlement includes "no-AG" agreements within the ambit of prohibited conduct, which has long been an enforcement priority for the FTC. This is a significant policy goal of the FTC and this proposed settlement ensures that Teva will not engage in such conduct for the next 10 years. The global settlement also highlights the FTC's view that a "payment" in the context of reverse patent settlements should be very broadly defined. Outside of a handful of enumerated carve-outs, nearly any exchange of value contingent on the settlement of a patent infringement suit or close in time to such a settlement could be considered a payment under the terms of the global settlement. Finally, this settlement allows the FTC to send another signal to the industry regarding side deals. This is a useful benchmark for the FTC, particularly in the context of AbbVie, where the FTC lost the motion to dismiss against Teva when the court ruled that the TriCor agreement was pro-competitive and not a side-deal constituting a reverse payment. The FTC thus secured a concession here on an issue that it had lost in court, in a related case.

Second, the settlement may have broader market effects because by expanding and extending the 2015 settlement agreement, it removes Teva as a potential reverse payment settlement partner. As described by the FTC, this proposed settlement "prevent[s] the world's largest manufacturer of generic drugs . . . from entering into the two most pernicious and common forms of reverse payments" for another decade.30

Third, settling these cases means that for the first time in a decade the FTC is close to clearing its pipeline of active reverse patent settlement cases. This may allow the FTC to move resources to other matters, including, if it chooses, other reverse payment investigations and litigations. However, it would not be surprising if the FTC begins to shift its focus to other pharmaceutical issues. In the years after FTC v. Actavis many of the open issues surrounding reverse payment settlements have been litigated, and the Teva global settlement, along with a number of other recent developments, has helped to clarify the outlines of settlement structures that may face challenge and those that are less risky. As a result, it appears that pharma companies have entered into fewer reverse payment settlements,31 which may allow the FTC to allocate additional resources to other high-profile pharmaceutical industry issues, such as potential issues relating to the use of REMS programs,32 Citizens Petitions,33 or other alleged misconduct by pharmaceutical manufacturers that might potentially limit the competitive impact of generic alternatives. Even so, the FTC will no doubt continue to monitor reverse payment settlements and remain active in this space for the foreseeable future.


1 FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 1:09-cv-00955 (N.D. Ga.); FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., 2:14-cv-05151 (E.D. Pa.); FTC v. Allergan plc, 17-cv-00312 (N.D. Cal.). The FTC brought each of these challenges against the branded manufacturer and against other generic manufactures.

2 Complaint, FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CV 09-00598 at ¶¶ 5, 81-85 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009). The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.

3 FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012).

4 FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136, 158-60 (2013). For more information, please see our advisories here  and here.

5 AbbVie settled with the FTC on February 28. That settlement includes prohibitions on compensation through business transactions or agreements concurrent with or contingent on settlement of the patent litigation as well as agreements by the branded manufacturer not to compete with an authorized generic manufacturer for a set duration. See  Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Revised Order, FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 1:09-cv-00955 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2019).

6 The claims against AbbVie also involved its predecessor, Abbot Laboratories, and subsidiary, Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC (referred to collectively in this section as "AbbVie").

7 Complaint, FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 2:14-cv-05151 at ¶¶ 1-5 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2014).

8 See id. at ¶¶6, 8.

9 See id. at ¶¶113-17.

10  See id. at ¶¶9, 154-559. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). The FTC also alleged a monopolization offense against AbbVie in a separate count. See  Complaint, AbbVie at ¶¶152-53.

11 FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 107 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436, 438 (E.D. Pa 2015). The district court determined that without Teva, the restraint of trade claim failed. The district court also dismissed the monopolization claim against AbbVie to the extent it was based on settlement with Teva. Id

12 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 2:14-cv-05151 at *77 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2018). The FTC also won a disgorgement award of $448 million. Id. at *101.

13 Notice of Appeal, FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 2:14-cv-05151(E.D. Pa. July 20, 2018).

14 At the time, the Watson entities were part of the same company. Now Watson Laboratories is a Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. subsidiary and Watson Pharmaceuticals is Allergan Finance LLC, an Allergan plc subsidiary.

15 Complaint, FTC v. Allergan plc, 3:17-cv-00312 at ¶¶ 2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017).

16 See id. at ¶ 3.

17 The FTC initially challenged the settlement in 2016, but after Endo and brand partner Teikoku settled, the FTC refiled the complaint in 2017 against only the generic manufacturers. See  Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. Agrees to Abandon Anticompetitive Pay-for-Delay Agreements to Settle FTC Charges; FTC Refiles Suits Against Generic Defendants (Jan. 23, 2017).

18 Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, FTC Enters Global Settlement to Resolve Reverse-Payment Charges against Teva (Feb. 19, 2019), (hereinafter "Teva Settlement Release").

19  Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, FTC v. Allergan plc, 3:17-cv-00312 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2019).

20 Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Monetary Relief, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., 2:08-cv-02141 at *4-*5, *9-*10 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2015).

21 See id. at *4-*5.

22 Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Revised Order, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., 2:08-cv-02141 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2019).

23 Id.

24 See {Proposed} Stipulated Revised Order for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Monetary Relief, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., 2:08-cv-02141 at *8-*9, *17-*18 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2019).

25 Compare Stipulated Order at *4-*5 and {Proposed} Stipulated Revised Order at *8-*9.

26 Defined as "the 60-day period starting 40 days before executing a Brand/Generic Settlement Agreement and ending 30 days after executing the Brand/Generic Settlement Agreement." {Proposed} Stipulated Revised Order at *4.

27 Compare Stipulated Order at *4-*5 and {Proposed} Stipulated Revised Order at *8-*12.

28  {Proposed} Stipulated Revised Order at *26.

29 See  Teva Settlement Release.

30 See id.

31  The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act requires pharmaceutical companies to file all reverse payment settlements with the FTC Premerger Notification Office. According to the most recent FTC data available, reverse payment filings have decreased since the Actavis  decision. See  Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Overview of Agreements Filed in FY 2015, A Report by the Bureau of Competition (Nov. 1, 2017).

32 See  Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, FTC Submits Statement to HHS on Its Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices (July 17, 2018).

33 See  Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, FTC Submits Comment on FDA Guidance Aimed at Deterring Abuse of Citizen Petition Process (Dec. 4, 2018). For more information, please see our Advisory.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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