- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
June 17, 2024Emily Tremblay Named IP Rising Star by Euromoney in 2024 Women in Business Law Awards
-
June 17, 2024Three Robins Kaplan Partners Named BTI Client Service All-Stars
-
June 13, 2024Brendan Johnson Named South Dakota Trial Lawyer of The Year
-
June 27, 2024Sex Abuse Litigation
-
June 10-11, 20242024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference
-
June 11, 2024FBA 2024 Federal Practice Seminar
-
June 2024Robins Kaplan Secures Landmark $7.75 Million Verdict in Aerosol Duster Misuse Case
-
June 2024To Seize or Not to Seize: Campus Protests and Police Uses of Force
-
June 2024Communicating Your Estate Plan: A Helpful Tool, Not a Fix-All
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Somaxon Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
The court granted defendant’s motion to enforce its settlement agreement, finding that the agreement was not anticompetitive and in violation of antitrust law.
April 09, 2020
![GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch Waxman Litigation Bulletin](/-/media/images/newsletters/generically-speaking-social-graphics/generically-speaking-nwsltr-badge.jpg?la=en&h=160&w=390&la=en&hash=314B8432ED62E0647D7FC4565EC18B79)
Case Name: Somaxon Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, No. 10-1100, 2020 WL 1903171 (D. Del. April 9, 2020) (Fallon, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Silenor® (doxepin hydrochloride); U.S. Patents Nos. 6,211,229 (“the ’229 patent”) and 7,915,307 (“the ’307 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Somaxon marketed Silenor, which was used to treat insomnia characterized by difficulties with sleep maintenance. In 2012, the parties executed an agreement that awarded Mylan the semi-exclusive right to sell an authorized generic of Silenor for 180 days beginning on January 1, 2020. Mylan obtained a “semi-exclusive” right insofar as Somaxon retained the right to grant one additional license during Mylan’s 180-day period, provided that such product was not an authorized generic. Actavis was granted that right and began selling an AB-rated generic version of Silenor on January 1, 2020.
After the agreement between Somaxon and Mylan had been executed, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding unenforceable reverse-payment settlements in the Hatch-Waxman context. Relying on Actavis, the Third Circuit subsequently held that a brand-name manufacturers’ promise not to produce an authorized generic amounted to an impermissible non-monetary reverse payment. In response, in October 2019, Currax (Somaxon’s successor-in-interest) informed Mylan of its plan to launch its own AG product. Mylan moved to enforce its agreement against Currax, which the court granted.
Why Mylan Prevailed: Currax argued that the agreement was unenforceable because it contained a “no-authorized generic” term that was anticompetitive and unlawful under the antitrust laws. The court disagreed, explaining that the agreement did not contain a no-AG provision because it allowed Mylan to launch an authorized generic, while a third party (Actavis) was permitted to market an AB-rated generic. In other words, because the agreement “authorize[d] Mylan to manufacture and sell an authorized generic to compete with Actavis’ AB-rated generic product during the 180-day exclusivity period, the provision lack[ed] the key features of a no-AG clause.”
Currax also contended that the provision was unenforceable under the California law that prohibits no-AG restraints in reverse payment settlements. The court explained, however, that there was no indication that the statute applied retroactively. Further, even assuming retroactive application, the California law contained a four-year statute of limitations, which had lapsed given the 2012 execution date of the Agreement. Additionally, any penalty “shall accrue only to the State of California” and could not be enforced in a civil action in Delaware.
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.