> ## 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.

# Pay-for-delay Settlements Drop Substantially: FTC
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/pay-for-delay-settlements-drop-substantially-ftc/
- Published: 2016-01-14T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-15T02:27:29.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, #legacy-id-D5134438

> The Federal Trade Commission says drug companies are entering into substantially fewer pay-for-delay patent dispute settlements than they were engaging in three years ago. According to a [new FTC staff report](https://www.ftc.gov/reports/agreements-filled-federal-trade-commission-under-medicare-prescription-drug-improvement-0?ref=fdaweb.com), the follows a landmark Supreme Court antitrust decision in [*FTC v. Actavis*](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/06/statement-ftc-chairwoman-edith-ramirez-us-supreme-courts-decision?ref=fdaweb.com) in 2013\. “The total number of such deals filed with the FTC has dropped to 21 in FY 2014 from 29 in FY 2013, and 40 in FY 2012 prior to the Actavis ruling,” it says.  
>  
> In *Actavis*, the high court held that a branded drug manufacturer’s reverse payment to a generic competitor to settle patent litigation can violate U.S. antitrust laws. “Also since the *Actavis* decision, the FTC announced a $1.2 billion settlement resolving its antitrust suit against [Cephalon, Inc](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-settlement-cephalon-pay-delay-case-ensures-12-billion-ill?ref=fdaweb.com). for allegedly illegally blocking generic competition to its blockbuster sleep-disorder drug Provigil,” the agency says.  
>  
> According to the staff report, while the number of filed settlements increased slightly – 160 in FY 2014 as opposed to 145 in FY 2013 – the number of potential pay-for-delay agreements decreased. “Twenty-one of the settlements in FY 2014 potentially involve pay for delay because the brand manufacturer compensated the generic manufacturer and the generic manufacturer was restricted from marketing its product in competition with the branded product for some period of time,” it says. According to the report, more than 80% of patent disputes involving potential generic drug competition were resolved without compensation to the generic manufacturer or without restrictions on generic competition.  
>  
> For more analysis, visit FTC’s blog posting [“Is *FTC v. Actavis* Causing Pharma Companies to Change Their Behavior?”](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2016/01/ftc-v-actavis-causing-pharma-companies-change-their?ref=fdaweb.com)