Sec. 3. Unlawful compensation for delay
1,743 words·~8 min read·
/bill/113/s/214/is/section-3A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
The Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 44 et seq. ) is amended by— redesignating section 28 as section 29; and inserting before section 29, as redesignated, the following: The Federal Trade Commission may initiate a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this section against the parties to any agreement resolving or settling, on a final or interim basis, a patent infringement claim, in connection with the sale of a drug product. Subject to subparagraph (B), in such a proceeding, an agreement shall be presumed to have anticompetitive effects and be unlawful if— an ANDA filer receives anything of value; and the ANDA filer agrees to limit or forego research, development, manufacturing, marketing, or sales of the ANDA product for any period of time.
The presumption in subparagraph
(A)shall not apply if the parties to such agreement demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the procompetitive benefits of the agreement outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the agreement. In determining whether the settling parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the fact finder shall consider— the length of time remaining until the end of the life of the relevant patent, compared with the agreed upon entry date for the ANDA product; the value to consumers of the competition from the ANDA product allowed under the agreement; the form and amount of consideration received by the ANDA filer in the agreement resolving or settling the patent infringement claim; the revenue the ANDA filer would have received by winning the patent litigation; the reduction in the NDA holder's revenues if it had lost the patent litigation; the time period between the date of the agreement conveying value to the ANDA filer and the date of the settlement of the patent infringement claim; and any other factor that the fact finder, in its discretion, deems relevant to its determination of competitive effects under this subsection. In determining whether the settling parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the fact finder shall not presume— that entry would not have occurred until the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity; or that the agreement's provision for entry of the ANDA product prior to the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity means that the agreement is pro-competitive, although such evidence may be relevant to the fact finder's determination under this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a resolution or settlement of a patent infringement claim in which the consideration granted by the NDA holder to the ANDA filer as part of the resolution or settlement includes only one or more of the following: The right to market the ANDA product in the United States prior to the expiration of— any patent that is the basis for the patent infringement claim; or any patent right or other statutory exclusivity that would prevent the marketing of such drug. A payment for reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed $7,500,000. A covenant not to sue on any claim that the ANDA product infringes a United States patent. The Federal Trade Commission may issue, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, regulations implementing and interpreting this section. These regulations may exempt certain types of agreements described in subsection
(a)if the Commission determines such agreements will further market competition and benefit consumers. Judicial review of any such regulation shall be in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to section 706 of title 5, United States Code. A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of section 5. Any person, partnership or corporation that is subject to a final order of the Commission, issued in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), may, within 30 days of the issuance of such order, petition for review of such order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the ultimate parent entity, as defined at 16 CFR 801.1(a)(3), of the NDA holder is incorporated as of the date that the NDA is filed with the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration, or the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the ultimate parent entity of the ANDA filer is incorporated as of the date that the ANDA is filed with the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration. In such a review proceeding, the findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify, impair or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws as defined in subsection
(a)of the 1st section of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. 12(a) ) and of section 5 of this Act to the extent that section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition. Nothing in this section shall modify, impair, limit or supersede the right of an ANDA filer to assert claims or counterclaims against any person, under the antitrust laws or other laws relating to unfair competition. Each person, partnership or corporation that violates or assists in the violation of this section shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty sufficient to deter violations of this section, but in no event greater than 3 times the value received by the party that is reasonably attributable to a violation of this section. If no such value has been received by the NDA holder, the penalty to the NDA holder shall be sufficient to deter violations, but in no event greater than 3 times the value given to the ANDA filer reasonably attributable to the violation of this section. Such penalty shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, in its own name by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership or corporation that violates this section. In such actions, the United States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate. If the Commission has issued a cease and desist order with respect to a person, partnership or corporation in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), an action brought pursuant to paragraph
(1)may be commenced against such person, partnership or corporation at any time before the expiration of one year after such order becomes final pursuant to section 5(g). In an action under subparagraph (A), the findings of the Commission as to the material facts in the administrative adjudicative proceeding with respect to such person's, partnership's or corporation's violation of this section shall be conclusive unless— the terms of such cease and desist order expressly provide that the Commission's findings shall not be conclusive; or the order became final by reason of section 5(g)(1), in which case such finding shall be conclusive if supported by evidence. In determining the amount of the civil penalty described in this section, the court shall take into account— the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of violations, the ability to pay, any effect on the ability to continue doing business, profits earned by the NDA holder, compensation received by the ANDA filer, and the amount of commerce affected; and other matters that justice requires. Remedies provided in this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy provided by Federal law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect any authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. In this section: The term agreement means anything that would constitute an agreement under section 1 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1 ) or section 5 of this Act. The term agreement resolving or settling a patent infringement claim includes any agreement that is entered into within 30 days of the resolution or the settlement of the claim, or any other agreement that is contingent upon, provides a contingent condition for, or is otherwise related to the resolution or settlement of the claim. The term ANDA means an abbreviated new drug application, as defined under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)). The term ANDA filer means a party who has filed an ANDA with the Food and Drug Administration. The term ANDA product means the product to be manufactured under the ANDA that is the subject of the patent infringement claim. The term drug product means a finished dosage form (e.g., tablet, capsule, or solution) that contains a drug substance, generally, but not necessarily, in association with 1 or more other ingredients, as defined in section 314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations. The term NDA means a new drug application, as defined under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 355(b) ). The term NDA holder means— the party that received FDA approval to market a drug product pursuant to an NDA; a party owning or controlling enforcement of the patent listed in the Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the FDA Orange Book ) in connection with the NDA; or the predecessors, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, and affiliates controlled by, controlling, or under common control with any of the entities described in subparagraphs
(A)and
(B)(such control to be presumed by direct or indirect share ownership of 50 percent or greater), as well as the licensees, licensors, successors, and assigns of each of the entities. The term patent infringement means infringement of any patent or of any filed patent application, extension, reissue, renewal, division, continuation, continuation in part, reexamination, patent term restoration, patents of addition and extensions thereof. The term patent infringement claim means any allegation made to an ANDA filer, whether or not included in a complaint filed with a court of law, that its ANDA or ANDA product may infringe any patent held by, or exclusively licensed to, the NDA holder of the drug product. The term statutory exclusivity means those prohibitions on the approval of drug applications under clauses
(ii)through
(iv)of section 505(c)(3)(E) (5- and 3-year data exclusivity), section 527 (orphan drug exclusivity), or section 505A (pediatric exclusivity) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. .
Connectionstraces to 5
Traces to 5 documents
Citation graph
cites case law
Cites 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources