{"id":90,"date":"2018-08-11T15:01:00","date_gmt":"2018-08-11T15:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=90"},"modified":"2018-08-11T15:01:00","modified_gmt":"2018-08-11T15:01:00","slug":"the-curious-case-of-wellbutrin-how-the-third-circuit-mistook-itself-for-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2018\/08\/11\/the-curious-case-of-wellbutrin-how-the-third-circuit-mistook-itself-for-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"The Curious Case of Wellbutrin: How the Third Circuit Mistook Itself for the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><em>FTC v. Actavis<\/em><sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. 570 U.S. 136 (2013).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_90_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> was one of the most important antitrust cases of the modern era. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court ensconced antitrust\u2019s role in analyzing settlements by which brand firms pay generics to delay entering the market. The Court underscored the harms presented by large and unjustified payments and rejected some of the prized justifications that settling parties had previously offered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Since <em>Actavis<\/em>, the lower courts have begun to flesh out the antitrust analysis of drug patent settlements. In particular, the federal appellate courts have held that payment extends beyond cash to noncash forms of consideration<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. <em>In re <\/em>Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 814 F.3d 538 (1st Cir. 2016); King Drug Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_90_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> and have liberally interpreted the pleading requirements for noncash conveyances.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">3<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">3. <em>In re <\/em>Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_90_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A recent opinion, however, threatens the orderly development of the post-<em>Actavis <\/em>case law. In analyzing plaintiffs\u2019 claim of antitrust injury in <em>In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation<\/em>,<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_90_1('footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_4');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">4<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">4. 868 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2017).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_90_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> a Third Circuit panel mistook itself for the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs had alleged that the generic would have entered the market earlier if not for the settlement, but the Third Circuit found that they could not make such a showing because they did not definitively prove that the patent was invalid or not infringed. The panel only reached this conclusion, however, by studiously ignoring the evidence of a large and unjustified payment that the Supreme Court had indicated was a surrogate for the patent\u2019s weakness and accepting a defense based on avoiding risk that the Supreme Court had rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Essay first provides a background on pharmaceutical patent settlements. It then discusses the <em>Actavis <\/em>and <em>Wellbutrin <\/em>cases. Finally, it shows how the Third Circuit panel issued a ruling that was based on inappropriate assumptions and is inconsistent with Supreme Court case law, Third Circuit precedent, and relevant regulatory policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>To read more, click here: <a href=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/SSRN-id3028329.pdf\">The Curious Case of Wellbutrin: How the Third Circuit Mistook Itself for the Supreme Cour<\/a>t<\/em>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_90_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_90_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_90_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_90_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_90_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">570 U.S. 136 (2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_90_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>In re <\/em>Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 814 F.3d 538 (1st Cir. 2016); King Drug Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_90_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_3');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_3\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>In re <\/em>Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_90_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_90_1_4');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_90_1_4\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">868 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2017).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_90_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_90_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_90_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_90_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_90_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_90_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_90_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_90_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_90_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_90_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_90_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_90_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_90_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_90_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>FTC v. Actavis11. 570 U.S. 136 (2013). was one of the most important antitrust cases of the modern era. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court ensconced antitrust\u2019s role in analyzing settlements by which brand firms pay generics to delay entering the market. The Court underscored the harms presented by large and unjustified payments and&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-90","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archives","category-print-volume-103"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}