> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# FTC Sues Endo for Authorized Generic ‘Pay-for-Delay’
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/ftc-sues-endo-for-authorized-generic-pay-for-delay/
- Published: 2016-03-31T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T20:52:01.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, #legacy-id-D5135242

> The FTC has filed suit in eastern PA federal court alleging that Endo Pharmaceuticals and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block generic versions of Opana ER and Lidoderm. The agency says this is the first FTC case challenging an agreement not to market an authorized generic (AG) as a form of a reverse payment. “Settlements between drug firms that include ‘no-AG commitments’ harm consumers twice – first by delaying the entry of generic drugs and then by preventing additional generic competition in the market following generic entry,” FTC chairwoman **Edith Ramirez** is quoted in a [release ](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/03/ftc-sues-endo-pharmaceuticals-inc-others-illegally-blocking-lower?ref=fdaweb.com)as saying.  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> [FTC’s complaint](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160331endocmpt.pdf?ref=fdaweb.com) alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extended-release opioid pain treatment. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a shingles complication.  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> FTC has previously argued in amicus briefs that a no-AG commitment can be very valuable to the first-filer generic because it allows the company to capture all generic sales and be able to charge higher prices during the exclusivity period. The agency is seeking a court judgment “declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future,” the release says.