Recent Rulings Highlight Risk to Japanese Drugmakers in Settling Pharmaceutical Litigations
In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), the US Supreme Court addressed the legality of “reverse payment” settlements in pharmaceutical patent litigation. A reverse payment occurs when a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a generic drug manufacturer to settle patent litigation and delay the generic’s market entry, essentially paying the potential competitor not to compete. Since Actavis, pharmaceutical companies’ settlements have become more complex, often finding ways to provide value to generic companies.
On May 13, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of the antitrust claims in a reverse payment case. Watson Labs., Inc. et al. v. Forest Labs., Inc. et al., 101 F. 4th 223 (2d Cir. 2024). Forest Laboratories, the brand manufacturer of Bystolic settled patent litigation with seven generic nebivolol manufacturers. As part of the settlements, Forest agreed to pay the defendants their saved legal expenses (up to $2 million) and granted each a non-exclusive royalty-free license to market generic Nebivolol. Alongside these agreements, Forest entered six additional commercial transactions with defendants, including supply agreements for active pharmaceutical ingredients, as well as development agreements for new products. The court held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that the commercial transactions were unjustified or unexplained reverse payments. The court found no plausible allegations showing that any of the transactions reflected anything other than fair value for goods and services obtained through good-faith business dealings.
Japanese drugmakers have likewise been forced to defend against reverse payment suits. In September 2025, CVS Pharmacy filed a complaint accusing Takeda Pharmaceutical and TWi Pharmaceuticals of entering into an illegal reverse payment agreement in the US market for Dexilant by agreeing that Takeda would pay TWi $9.5 million in cash and appoint TWi as its authorized generic, ensuring that no other generic could compete against TWi. CVS Pharma., Inc. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. et al., No. 3:25-cv-07646 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025). In exchange, TWi agreed to stay off the market until January 2022, approximately 18 months after the patent that was blocking TWi from entering the market. Takeda and TWi are seeking to dismiss this lawsuit. The Dexilant antitrust case was filed one year after Takeda settled an earlier reverse payment lawsuit, in which Takeda was accused of granting Par Pharmaceutical the right to operate as Takeda’s “authorized generic” distributor for its gout drug Colcrys in exchange for a later entry date and with high royalties paid to Takeda. Plaintiffs contended this conspiracy lasted for over 4 years, during which drug prices were 1,200% higher than they would have been with generic competition. (A. Liu, Fierce Pharma, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcyrs after trial kicked off, Sept. 21, 2023, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcrys after trial kicked off | Fierce Pharma.)
The takeaway is that plaintiff lawyers in the United States are aggressively attacking drug settlements that provide value to generic companies, such as the right to serve as the brand’s “authorized generic” distributor or commercial side deals, in exchange for later entry of generic competition. Japanese drug manufacturers should carefully review these clauses or side deals when settling with generics and be prepared to defend the fair value of these provisions if a complaint is filed.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Japanese drugmakers have likewise been forced to defend against reverse payment suits. In September 2025, CVS Pharmacy filed a complaint accusing Takeda Pharmaceutical and TWi Pharmaceuticals of entering into an illegal reverse payment agreement in the US market for Dexilant by agreeing that Takeda would pay TWi $9.5 million in cash and appoint TWi as its authorized generic, ensuring that no other generic could compete against TWi. CVS Pharma., Inc. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. et al., No. 3:25-cv-07646 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025). In exchange, TWi agreed to stay off the market until January 2022, approximately 18 months after the patent that was blocking TWi from entering the market. Takeda and TWi are seeking to dismiss this lawsuit. The Dexilant antitrust case was filed one year after Takeda settled an earlier reverse payment lawsuit, in which Takeda was accused of granting Par Pharmaceutical the right to operate as Takeda’s “authorized generic” distributor for its gout drug Colcrys in exchange for a later entry date and with high royalties paid to Takeda. Plaintiffs contended this conspiracy lasted for over 4 years, during which drug prices were 1,200% higher than they would have been with generic competition. (A. Liu, Fierce Pharma, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcyrs after trial kicked off, Sept. 21, 2023, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcrys after trial kicked off | Fierce Pharma.)
The takeaway is that plaintiff lawyers in the United States are aggressively attacking drug settlements that provide value to generic companies, such as the right to serve as the brand’s “authorized generic” distributor or commercial side deals, in exchange for later entry of generic competition. Japanese drug manufacturers should carefully review these clauses or side deals when settling with generics and be prepared to defend the fair value of these provisions if a complaint is filed.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), the US Supreme Court addressed the legality of “reverse payment” settlements in pharmaceutical patent litigation. A reverse payment occurs when a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a generic drug manufacturer to settle patent litigation and delay the generic’s market entry, essentially paying the potential competitor not to compete. Since Actavis, pharmaceutical companies’ settlements have become more complex, often finding ways to provide value to generic companies.
On May 13, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of the antitrust claims in a reverse payment case. Watson Labs., Inc. et al. v. Forest Labs., Inc. et al., 101 F. 4th 223 (2d Cir. 2024). Forest Laboratories, the brand manufacturer of Bystolic settled patent litigation with seven generic nebivolol manufacturers. As part of the settlements, Forest agreed to pay the defendants their saved legal expenses (up to $2 million) and granted each a non-exclusive royalty-free license to market generic Nebivolol. Alongside these agreements, Forest entered six additional commercial transactions with defendants, including supply agreements for active pharmaceutical ingredients, as well as development agreements for new products. The court held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that the commercial transactions were unjustified or unexplained reverse payments. The court found no plausible allegations showing that any of the transactions reflected anything other than fair value for goods and services obtained through good-faith business dealings.
Japanese drugmakers have likewise been forced to defend against reverse payment suits. In September 2025, CVS Pharmacy filed a complaint accusing Takeda Pharmaceutical and TWi Pharmaceuticals of entering into an illegal reverse payment agreement in the US market for Dexilant by agreeing that Takeda would pay TWi $9.5 million in cash and appoint TWi as its authorized generic, ensuring that no other generic could compete against TWi. CVS Pharma., Inc. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. et al., No. 3:25-cv-07646 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025). In exchange, TWi agreed to stay off the market until January 2022, approximately 18 months after the patent that was blocking TWi from entering the market. Takeda and TWi are seeking to dismiss this lawsuit. The Dexilant antitrust case was filed one year after Takeda settled an earlier reverse payment lawsuit, in which Takeda was accused of granting Par Pharmaceutical the right to operate as Takeda’s “authorized generic” distributor for its gout drug Colcrys in exchange for a later entry date and with high royalties paid to Takeda. Plaintiffs contended this conspiracy lasted for over 4 years, during which drug prices were 1,200% higher than they would have been with generic competition. (A. Liu, Fierce Pharma, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcyrs after trial kicked off, Sept. 21, 2023, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcrys after trial kicked off | Fierce Pharma.)
The takeaway is that plaintiff lawyers in the United States are aggressively attacking drug settlements that provide value to generic companies, such as the right to serve as the brand’s “authorized generic” distributor or commercial side deals, in exchange for later entry of generic competition. Japanese drug manufacturers should carefully review these clauses or side deals when settling with generics and be prepared to defend the fair value of these provisions if a complaint is filed.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Japanese drugmakers have likewise been forced to defend against reverse payment suits. In September 2025, CVS Pharmacy filed a complaint accusing Takeda Pharmaceutical and TWi Pharmaceuticals of entering into an illegal reverse payment agreement in the US market for Dexilant by agreeing that Takeda would pay TWi $9.5 million in cash and appoint TWi as its authorized generic, ensuring that no other generic could compete against TWi. CVS Pharma., Inc. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. et al., No. 3:25-cv-07646 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025). In exchange, TWi agreed to stay off the market until January 2022, approximately 18 months after the patent that was blocking TWi from entering the market. Takeda and TWi are seeking to dismiss this lawsuit. The Dexilant antitrust case was filed one year after Takeda settled an earlier reverse payment lawsuit, in which Takeda was accused of granting Par Pharmaceutical the right to operate as Takeda’s “authorized generic” distributor for its gout drug Colcrys in exchange for a later entry date and with high royalties paid to Takeda. Plaintiffs contended this conspiracy lasted for over 4 years, during which drug prices were 1,200% higher than they would have been with generic competition. (A. Liu, Fierce Pharma, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcyrs after trial kicked off, Sept. 21, 2023, Takeda settles antitrust lawsuit over gout drug Colcrys after trial kicked off | Fierce Pharma.)
The takeaway is that plaintiff lawyers in the United States are aggressively attacking drug settlements that provide value to generic companies, such as the right to serve as the brand’s “authorized generic” distributor or commercial side deals, in exchange for later entry of generic competition. Japanese drug manufacturers should carefully review these clauses or side deals when settling with generics and be prepared to defend the fair value of these provisions if a complaint is filed.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026
Publications
In Law360, Trump Debarment Threat Calls for Targeted Defense Plan
Partners Ashley Callen and David Robbins authored an article for Law360 examining how entities should respond when suspension or debarment is threatened directly by the president, rather than initiated through the usual agency-driven process.
August 6, 2026