CONSUMER NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS  


Complain about a product or service

Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish
Automotive    Education    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Shopping    Travel   
NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

FTC Sues Cephalon over Provigil Pricing

Charges it blocked sale of low-cost generics





February 14, 2008
The Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint against Cephalon, Inc., charging that the company acted illegally to prevent competition against its branded drug Provigil.

According to the FTC, the anticompetitive conduct includes paying four firms to refrain from selling generic versions of Provigil until 2012.

Cephalon’s anticompetitive scheme, said the agency, denies patients access to lower-cost, generic versions of Provigil and forces consumers and other purchasers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year more for Provigil.

Cephalon is accused of entering into agreements with four generic drug manufacturers that each planned to sell a generic version of Provigil. Each of these companies had challenged the only remaining patent covering Provigil, one relating to the size of particles used in the product.

The complaint charges that Cephalon was able to induce each of the generic companies to abandon its patent challenge and agree to refrain from selling a generic version of Provigil until 2012 by agreeing to pay the companies a total amount in excess of $200 million. In so doing, Cephalon achieved a result that assertion of its patent rights alone could not.

The suit against Cephalon seeks to “undo a course of anticompetitive conduct that is harming American consumers by depriving them of access to lower-cost generic alternatives to an important branded drug,” said FTC Bureau of Competition Director Jeffrey Schmidt.

“Cephalon prevented competition to Provigil by agreeing to share its future monopoly profits with generic drug makers poised to enter the market, in exchange for delayed generic entry. Such conduct is at the core of what the antitrust laws proscribe,” he added.

With U.S. sales of Provigil totaling over $800 million in 2007, and accounting for more than 40 percent of Cephalon’s total sales, the prospect of generic competition was a major financial threat to the company, the complaint states.

Generic entry can significantly reduce the sales of existing branded drugs, and Cephalon knew that it would profit by keeping lower-cost generic alternatives to Provigil off the market, the agency contends.

According to the Commission, by late 2005, generic competition to Provigil appeared imminent. Several years earlier, on the first day permitted by regulation, four companies --- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Barr Laboratories, Inc. -- submitted applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market their own generic versions of Provigil.

Facing the prospect of billions of dollars in lost revenue, Cephalon entered into agreements through which it compensated each of the four generic companies to settle the patent litigation and agree to forgo generic entry until April 2012, the FTC alleges. These agreements contained payments to the generic companies totaling more than $200 million.

No other generic company could compete with branded Provigil, unless and until all four “first filers” either relinquished their marketing exclusivity or 180 days after one of them entered the market. Cephalon therefore was able to erect a barrier that protected it from other companies that have also sought approval to sell generic Provigil.

The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction against Cephalon that would allow generic Provigil entry before 2012. Further, it is seeking a final court judgment against Cephalon declaring that its course of conduct, including its agreements with Teva, Ranbaxy, Mylan, and Barr, violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and barring Cephalon from engaging in similar or related conduct in the future.



Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.


Consumer News

September 5 2008

Recent Recalls & Safety Alerts



FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!


Knowledge is free.
Knowledge is power.







Back to the top |

Advertisement


Home | Complaint Form | News | Recalls | FAQ |
Consumer Resources | Small Claims Guide | Lemon Law | Newsletter | Contact Us
Advertise With Us | Testimonials | Newsroom | RSS Feeds |


Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.