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 Lawyers
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 Lawyers
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
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block Rises in American Lawyer Rankings for Summer Associate Experience
Jenner & Block ranked 14th nationally in The American Lawyer’s 2026 Summer Associate Satisfaction Survey, jumping 10 spots from last year. The annual survey measures summer associate satisfaction at US law firms based on ratings provided directly by summer associates across key firm qualities.
October 2, 2026