On Monday, June 23, 2014, a Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for five pharmaceutical companies on horizontal conspiracy claims brought by Apotex Inc. and direct purchaser and end payor plaintiffs regarding the popular narcolepsy drug Provigil. Provigil’s key ingredient is modafinil, “a wakefulness-promoting agent” used to treat sleep disorders like narcolepsy. Apotex and the Provigil buyers claimed that Cephalon, Inc. unlawfully restrained trade and maintained a monopoly on modafinil sales by facilitating a horizontal conspiracy through reverse payment settlements with generic-drug manufacturers.
Cephalon, which manufacturers Provigil, entered into reverse payment settlements (also known as “pay-for-delay”) between 2005-2008 to settle patent infringement litigation with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Mylan Inc., and Barr Laboratories, Inc. Although Judge Mitchell Goldberg previously held the plaintiffs’ claims were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, on summary he judgment he found insufficient evidence of a conspiracy.
Judge Goldberg held that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of the alleged hub-and-spoke conspiracy. He reasoned that evidence of “conscious parallelism” among the defendants’ behavior was not enough to levy an antitrust claim when equally plausible independent explanations for their behavior exist. For example, the generic-drug manufacturers were separately compensated and some would receive favored treatment regarding royalty rates. The “pay-for-delay” settlement agreements also created contingent launch provisions, reassuring generic companies that they would not lose the opportunity to launch if another generic-drug manufacturer obtained an earlier date. Had the agreements been contrary to the generic-drug manufacturers’ self-interest, the claims would have more closely resembled noteworthy hub-and-spoke conspiracy cases.
Judge Goldberg cautioned, however, that the court’s opinion does not address the legality of each individual “pay-for-delay” settlement agreements between Cephalon and the generic-drug manufacturers. The Federal Trade Commission is separately challenging the settlements under antitrust law.