Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking to reverse the district court’s refusal to enjoin a California law which makes reverse-payment settlements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers presumptively anticompetitive and imposes a $20 million minimum penalty on individuals who negotiate such settlements. Reverse-payment settlements are critically important to pharmaceutical manufacturers as they allow generics to enter the market, while fairly protecting patent holders and encouraging expensive and lengthy drug research and development. The law also conflicts with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (FTC v. Actavis), which refused to hold reverse-payment settlements presumptively unlawful. A federal district court rejected the Association for Accessible Medicine's suit challenging the law. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the NAM's amicus brief, filed February 6, 2020, highlights how the California law undermines federal law and stands as an obstacle to the explicit aims of Congress. Unfortunately, on July 24, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit for lack of standing under Article III.