Other court action
On Monday, Supreme Court justices:
— Struck down, by a 7-2 vote, Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law that asks would-be voters for additional documentation before allowing them to register using a federal form designed to make signing up easier.
— Held 5-4 that prosecutors in some instances may use a suspect’s silence at an early stage of a criminal investigation against him — before the suspect has been arrested or informed of his constitutional rights.
— Agreed to decide in its next term a new dispute involving race, whether federal housing law requires proof of intentional discrimination.
— Decided 5-4 that judges may not increase mandatory minimum prison terms when sentencing defendants unless the facts justifying the increase have been found by a jury.
— Barred lawyers, in another 5-4 ruling, from obtaining state driver license records to recruit clients, saying the practice is prohibited by a federal law aimed at shielding motor vehicle information.
— Said it would review a state court ruling upholding a $1.24 million defamation judgment against a Wisconsin airline that reported one of its pilots was potentially dangerous, despite a post-9/11 law that encourages airlines to report potential safety threats to federal officials.
Associated Press
On the docket
Though the Supreme Court’s term will be over by the end of next week, its Monday opinions did not include any of the three most-watched of the term: rulings on gay marriage, affirmative action and voting rights. Those could come on Thursday — the next scheduled day for opinions — on Monday, or, if the court chooses, on an additional day next week. Here’s a look at those cases:
— Gay marriage. The court is due to rule in two cases. One challenges a federal court ruling that a voter-approved California ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the case could have nationwide effects, or it could be limited solely to California. The other case asks the court to uphold a lower court ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. In that case, a New York woman who married another woman in Canada challenged the law after her spouse died and she was barred her from claiming a marriage exemption on estate taxes.
— Affirmative action. A case filed by a would-be student against the University of Texas asks it to ban consideration of race in college admissions decision. The court’s ruling may settle this long-debated question and could have implications for all sorts of programs that use race as a criterion for eligibility.
— Voting rights. An Alabama case challenges Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires all or parts of states with a history of discriminatory practices — mostly in the South and West — to submit any change in their voting systems to the Justice Department for approval before enacting them. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could spell the end of such federal oversight in several states that have been moving to make voter eligibility more stringent.
Staff report
Deals between pharmaceutical corporations and their generic drug competitors, which government officials say keep cheaper forms of medicine off the market, can sometimes be illegal and therefore can be challenged in court, the Supreme Court said Monday.
The justices voted 5-3 to allow the government to inspect and challenge what it calls “pay-for-delay” deals or “reverse payment settlements.”
Drug companies wanted the court to immunize their agreements from possible antitrust attack in court. But “this court’s precedents make clear that patent-related settlement agreements can sometimes violate antitrust law,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the court’s opinion.
Reverse payment settlements arise when generic companies file a challenge at the Food and Drug Administration to the patents that give brand-name drugs a 20-year monopoly. The generic drugmakers aim to prove the patent is flawed or otherwise invalid, so they can launch a generic version well before the patent ends.
Brand-name drugmakers then usually sue the generic companies, which sets up what could be years of expensive litigation. When the two sides aren’t certain who will win, they often reach a compromise deal that allows the generic company to sell its cheaper copycat drug in a few years — but years before the drug’s patent would expire. Often, that settlement comes with a sizable payment from the brand-name company to the generic drugmaker.
Drugmakers say the settlements protect their interests but also benefit consumers by bringing inexpensive copycat medicines to market years earlier than they would arrive in any case generic drugmakers took to trial and lost. But federal officials counter that such deals add billions to the drug bills of American patients and taxpayers, compared with what would happen if the generic companies won the lawsuits and could begin marketing right away.
“This decision makes clear that drug companies can be sued to stop anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreements,’ said New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. ” It will be an important weapon in the fight for affordable drug prices and quality health care for every citizen.”
But Steve Reed, a lawyer at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, said the decision could delay the entry of cheaper generics into the market.
“The upshot of the decision is that, with the exception of settlements limited to compromises on the patent term itself — with modest payments to avoid the cost of litigation — there will be increased uncertainty about whether particular settlements will pass antitrust scrutiny,” Reed said. “This may have a chilling effect on parties’ willingness to settle, and thus forgo guaranteed early entry by generics.”
Generic drugs account for about 80 percent of all American prescriptions for medicines and vaccines, but a far smaller percentage of the $325 billion spent by U.S. consumers on drugs each year. Generics saved American patients, taxpayers and the health care system an estimated $193 billion in 2011 alone, according to health data firm IMS Health.
But government officials believe the number of potentially anticompetitive patent settlements is increasing. Pay-for-delay deals increased from 28 to 40 in just the last two fiscal years and the deals in fiscal 2012 covered 31 brand-name pharmaceuticals, Federal Trade Commission officials said. Those had combined annual U.S. sales of more than $8.3 billion.
Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the case.
The case is Federal Trade Commission vs. Actavis, Inc., 12-416.
About the Author
