STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT PITOFSKY AND
Abbott Laboratories and Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Docket Nos. C-3945 and C-3946
The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment, which accompanied our acceptance of consent agreements with Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, describes the conduct of those two companies in agreeing that Abbott would pay Geneva to refrain from selling a generic version of Hytrin, Abbott's branded version of terazosin hydrochloride. It also describes relevant provisions of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 ("Hatch-Waxman Act"), including particularly the provision that gives the first generic company to seek FDA approval a 180-day period during which it has the exclusive right to market the generic version of a brand name drug.
Pursuant to a private agreement not reviewed by any court, Abbott paid Geneva substantial sums not to enter the market with its generic version of Hytrin, and not to transfer, assign or relinquish its 180-day exclusive marketing right to any other producer of generic products that might compete with Abbott. By not selling its generic version, Geneva prevented the start of the 180-day exclusivity period, with the result that neither Geneva nor any other company could introduce a generic version of Hytrin into the market.
The consent orders that we issue today against Abbott and Geneva represent the first resolution of an antitrust challenge by the government to a private agreement whereby a brand name drug company paid the first generic company that sought FDA approval not to enter the market, and to retain its 180-day period of market exclusivity. Because the behavior occurred in the context of the complicated provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and because this is the first government antitrust enforcement action in this area, we believe the public interest is satisfied with orders that regulate future conduct by the parties. We recognize that there may be market settings in which similar but less restrictive arrangements could be justified, and each case must be examined with respect to its particular facts.
In March we also issued an administrative complaint against two other pharmaceutical companies with respect to conduct that is in some ways similar to the conduct addressed by these consent orders. We anticipate that the development of a full factual record in the administrative proceeding will help to shape further the appropriate parameters of permissible conduct in this area and will guide other companies and their legal advisors.
Pharmaceutical firms should now be on notice, however, that arrangements comparable to those addressed in the present consent orders can raise serious antitrust issues, with a potential for serious consumer harm. Accordingly, in the future, the Commission will consider its entire range of remedies in connection with enforcement actions against such arrangements, including possibly seeking disgorgement of illegally obtained profits.
If firms are uncertain about the limits of permissible behavior under the Hatch-Waxman Act, they may, of course, seek advisory opinions from the staff of this agency.