In re Cipro Cases I & II

Good Law
187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 632·2015 Cal. LEXIS 2486·61 Cal. 4th 116·348 P.3d 845
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 7, 2015S198616California16,755 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

To protect competition in the marketplace, antitrust law prohibits agreements that create or perpetuate monopolies. Patent law, in contrast, grants temporary monopolies to inventors to encourage the development of useful innovations. We consider here a crucial question at the intersection of these two bodies of law: What limits, if any, does antitrust law place on the ability of a patent holder to make agreements restricting competition during the life of its patent? In particular, when another entity tries to invalidate a patent and enter the marketplace, can the patentee pay the would-be competitor to withdraw its challenge and refrain from competing until at or near the natural expiration of the potentially invalid patent’s life?

The answer to this is of special moment to the pharmaceutical industry, which has seen a raft of suits in which generic drug manufacturers (generics), seeking to introduce lower priced alternatives to patented brand-name drugs, raise patent invalidity as a defense to claims of infringement. With increasing frequency these cases have settled, with the plaintiff brand-name drug manufacturer (brand) making a “reverse payment” to the defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.