SB1096 introduces a new Federal Trade Commission framework to stop agreements that delay the entry of generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. It targets settlements where a brand-name manufacturer pays a potential generic competitor to resolve a patent dispute, with the aim of preserving rapid, affordable access to medicines.
The bill also extends a similar scrutiny to biosimilars, addressing arrangements that could delay biosimilar and interchangeable biological products.
The measure creates a presumption of anticompetitive effects for certain value transfers tied to settlement agreements and imposes civil penalties, certification and reporting requirements, and enforcement tools to deter such conduct. It also clarifies definitions around ANDA/BLA pathways, market entry, and what constitutes a legitimately settled claim.
The overall goal is to align pharmaceutical settlements with antitrust norms and to reduce costs borne by consumers and payers when competition is unlawfully restrained.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new FTC provision prohibiting agreements that settle patent claims for drug or biological products if they have anticompetitive effects. It creates a presumption of anticompetitive impact under specific value-transfer conditions and provides civil penalties, enforcement authority, and procedural requirements.
Who It Affects
ANDAs and biosimilar applications, NDA holders, brand-name manufacturers, and their patent holders; health plans and payers, and entities negotiating pharmaceutical settlements.
Why It Matters
It directly targets reverse-payment and other value-transfer agreements that delay generic and biosimilar entry, preserving competition, lowering drug costs, and reinforcing consumer protections under antitrust law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act by adding Section 27, which makes it a violation to enter into agreements that settle patent claims for drug or biological products if those agreements have anticompetitive effects. A central feature is a presumption that such agreements are anticompetitive when an ANDA filer or biosimilar applicant receives something of value—such as an exclusive license—and agrees to limit or forgo research, development, manufacturing, or sales for a period.
An exception exists if the value is for other goods or services, or if the procompetitive benefits outweigh the anticompetitive effects.
Enforcement can include civil penalties up to three times the value of the transfer, in addition to other remedies. The bill also authorizes civil actions by the FTC and includes a framework for remedies and consideration of various factors related to the violation.
It provides exclusions for certain settlements, mandates certification and notices about settlements, and links enforcement to 180-day exclusivity provisions under the FD&C Act. The act also requires the FTC to report on potential expansions of exclusions related to NDA/ANDA and biosimilar settlements and sets a six-year statute of limitations for enforcement actions after filing certifications.
Finally, it preserves severability to keep the rest of the act intact if any provision is found unconstitutional.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Adds a new FTC section (Sec. 27) to prohibit anticompetitive drug settlement deals.
Creates a presumption of anticompetitive effects when value is exchanged in settlements with ANDA/biosimilar filers.
Allows civil penalties up to 3x the value of the transfer and enables FTC enforcement.
Requires CEO certification and court/agency filings of settlement agreements.
Links enforcement to FD&C Act 180-day exclusivity and requires annual FTC reporting on potential exclusions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act.
Findings and Purposes
The findings recount the history and impact of the 1984 Act and the BPCIA, noting that reverse-payment and similar agreements can delay generic and biosimilar entry, raising costs for consumers and payers. The purposes are to enhance competition and deter anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry.
Unlawful Compensation for Delay
Section 27 of the FTC Act is added, establishing a prohibition on agreements that settle patent claims with anticompetitive effects in drug and biological product sales. It defines a presumption of anticompetitive impact under certain value-transfer conditions and sets out exceptions where a procompetitive benefit can outweigh anticompetitive harms. It also authorizes civil actions and remedies.
Certification of Agreements
The CEO or equivalent official must certify, within 30 days of filing, that the settlement materials filed with the FTC and DOJ are complete and comprehensive, including any ancillary or oral agreements responsive to the referenced settlement.
Notification of Agreements
The Medicare Modernization Act framework is amended to require notices of agreements and extended certifications related to patent settlements, including considerations tied to biosimilar and NDA/BLA dynamics.
Forfeiture of 180-Day Exclusivity
The 180-day exclusivity period for generic entry is modified to reference section 27, ensuring that violations of the new prohibitions can trigger forfeiture penalties within the exclusivity regime.
Commission Litigation Authority
The FTC’s litigation authority is updated to add Section 27 as a basis to pursue violations, ensuring consistent enforcement across agency powers.
Report on Additional Exclusions
Within one year, the FTC must report on whether there should be an additional exclusion for consideration granted by NDA holders to ANDA filers or by biosimilar license holders to biosimilar applicants as part of settlements, including the definitions of relevant parties.
Statute of Limitations
Enforcement under Section 27 must commence within six years after the certification filing, tying the enforcement window to the certification process.
Severability
If any provision is held unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act remains in effect.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers and patients through earlier access to affordable generics and biosimilars, improving affordability and access.
- ANDA filers and biosimilar applicants benefit from a clearer framework that discourages strategic settlements that delay entry.
- NDA holders and brand-name manufacturers face a tighter constraint on settlements, promoting prompt competition.
- Health plans and payers may experience reduced costs due to earlier competition.
- Healthcare providers may see improved patient access to lower-cost medicines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Brand-name drug manufacturers that rely on settlement strategies to preserve market exclusivity.
- NDA holders who may encounter stricter settlement terms or penalties when agreements violate Section 27.
- Biosimilar and generic product developers who may face increased compliance burdens (certifications and reporting).
- Legal and compliance teams within pharmaceutical companies bearing new documentation and certification costs.
- Some entities involved in settlements could incur fines or penalties if agreements are deemed anticompetitive.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the prohibition of anti-competitive settlements with preserving legitimate settlement flexibility. Prohibiting value transfers could deter anticompetitive schemes but might also discourage settlements even when they are procompetitive, potentially delaying entry or incentivizing costly litigation. The challenge is to craft precise standards that deter truly anticompetitive behavior without unduly constraining constructive negotiation.
The bill squarely targets agreements that delay competition, but the scope raises questions about what constitutes an anticompetitive effect and how broad the presumed standard should be. A key tension lies in distinguishing legitimate, market-based settlements from sham or anticompetitive deals.
The certification and notice provisions shift some compliance costs to industry, the FTC, and DOJ, and there is a potential chilling effect on settlements that could otherwise resolve patent disputes without harming competition. The undefined boundary of “anything of value” and the interplay with established antitrust remedies warrant careful scrutiny to avoid overly expansive interpretations that could chill innovation or limit negotiated resolutions.
The expansion of penalties, including tripling the value of consideration, raises the stakes for both brand-name and generic manufacturers, necessitating robust internal controls and legal risk assessments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.