Tag: Prescription Drugs

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Opana ER and Lidoderm with an agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – as a form of reverse payment. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extendedrelease opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.  Teikoko Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. agreed to a stipulated order resolving FTC charges.

In November 2016, the FTC voluntarily dismissed the complaint in this action.  On January 23, 2017, the FTC refiled charges related to the Lidoderm agreements in federal court in California (Federal Trade Commission vs. Allergan plc; Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al) and refiled charges related to the Opana ER agreement in a Part 3 administrative proceeding.  (In re Impax Laboratories, Inc.)

The Commission challenged Pfizer Inc.’s proposed $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth and required significant divestitures to preserve competition in multiple U.S. markets for animal pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The proposed consent order remedies the anticompetitive effects the Commission believes are likely to result from the transaction in numerous markets for animal vaccines and animal pharmaceutical products. After a thorough investigation, the Commission concluded that the transaction does not raise anticompetitive concerns in any human health product markets.

Generic drug marketer Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC agreed to divest its rights and interests in five generic injectable pharmaceuticals to settle charges that its $5 million acquisition of the rights to various drug products and related assets from Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, without a remedy, Hikma’s purchase of certain generic injectables would likely harm future competition in the U.S. markets for (1) Acyclovir sodium injection: an antiviral drug used to treat chicken pox, herpes, and other related infections, (2) Diltiazem hydrochloride injection: a calcium channel  blocker and antihypertensive used to treat hypertension, angina, and arrhythmias, (3) Famotidine injection: a treatment for ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease, (4) Prochlorperazine edisylate injection: an antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia and nausea, and (5) Valproate sodium injection: a treatment for epilepsy, seizures, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and migraine headaches. Hikma is required to divest the five generic injectable drug assets to Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California-based specialty pharmaceutical company that sells generic injectable and inhalation products.

Mylan N.V. agreed to sell the rights and assets related to seven generic drugs in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed acquisition of Perrigo Company plc would be substantially reduce competition in the markets for those drugs if the merger proceeded as originally proposed. 

Pharmaceutical companies Endo International plc and Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. agreed to divest all of Endo’s rights and assets to generic glycopyrrolate tablets and generic methimazole tablets in order to settle FTC charges that Endo’s proposed $8 billion acquisition of Par would likely be anticompetitive. New Jersey-based generic drug marketer Rising Pharmaceuticals will acquire the divested assets. Under the settlement, Endo must supply Rising with the divested products for two years, while it transfers the manufacturing technology to Rising’s chosen third-party manufacturer. Endo also must provide technical assistance, training, and other transitional services to help Rising establish manufacturing capabilities. Without the divestitures required by the proposed order, the FTC alleges that the acquisition would combine the two most significant suppliers in the market for generic glycopyrrolate tablets, which are used with other drugs to treat certain types of ulcers, and two of only four active suppliers in the market for generic methimazole tablets, which are used to treat the body’s production of excess thyroid hormone.

Pharmaceutical companies Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. settled FTC charges that they entered into an unlawful agreement not to compete in the sale of generic versions of Kapvay, a prescription drug used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to enforce the anticompetitive provisions of their agreement. Until May 15, 2015, Concordia and Par were the only two firms permitted by the FDA to market generic Kapvay. Rather than competing against one another, Concordia agreed not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay in exchange for a share of Par’s revenues. Under the terms of the settlements, Concordia is prohibited from enforcing the anticompetitive provisions of its agreement with Par, including the profit-sharing provisions, and Par is prohibited from enforcing provisions that bar Concordia from agreeing not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay. Concordia began selling generic Kapvay after learning of the FTC’s investigation.

Pfizer Inc. agreed to sell the rights and assets related to four pharmaceutical products in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $16 billion acquisition of Hospira, Inc. would likely be anticompetitive. Pfizer is one of the world’s largest drug companies and principally competes with Hospira in markets for certain sterile injectable pharmaceutical products. The order requires Pfizer to supply Alvogen with the clindamycin phosphate injection product for three years while Pfizer transfers the manufacturing technology to Alvogen or its designee. Pfizer also is required to provide transitional services to Alvogen to assist with establishing manufacturing capabilities and securing FDA approvals to market all of the divested products.

Pharmaceutical companies Impax Laboratories Inc. and CorePharma, LLC agreed to divest all of CorePharma’s rights and assets to generic pilocarpine tablets and generic ursodiol tablets, in order to settle FTC charges that Impax’s proposed $700 million acquisition of CorePharma would likely be anticompetitive. Without the divestitures required by the proposed order, the FTC alleges that the acquisition would reduce the number of future suppliers in the markets for generic pilocarpine tablets, which are used to treat dry mouth, and generic ursodiol tablets, which are used to treat biliary cirrhosis, a chronic disease of the liver, as well as gall bladder diseases. CorePharma’s entry as an independent competitor would likely have resulted in significantly lower prices for each of these drugs. According to the FTC’s complaint, there are currently only two suppliers in the market for generic pilocarpine tablets, and Impax and CorePharma are the only likely new entrants into this market in the near future. In the market for generic ursodiol tablets, there are currently four suppliers, including Impax. This market
has recently experienced supply shortages, which can diminish competition among suppliers. CorePharma is one of a limited number of firms likely to enter the generic ursodiol market in the near future.