Opinion ID: 1190929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Bayer-Barr Lawsuit

Text: Barr filed an ANDA-IV challenging Bayer's Cipro patent in October 1991. [5] Bayer sued Barr for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York within 45 days of its receipt of notice of Barr's filing, triggering the Hatch-Waxman statutory stay. [6] Barr subsequently entered into an agreement with other defendants herein, also potential generic manufacturers of Cipro, to share the costs and benefits of the patent litigation. In June 1996, the district court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. In January 1997  approximately two weeks prior to the scheduled trial  Bayer and Barr entered into a reverse exclusionary payment (or pay-for-delay) settlement: that is, the patent holder (Bayer) agreed to pay the alleged infringer to settle the lawsuit, and in exchange, the alleged infringer agreed not to enter the market. [7] Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Bayer agreed to (1) pay $49.1 million immediately; (2) make quarterly payments of between $12.5 and $17.125 million for the duration of the patent except for the last six months prior to the patent's expiration; [8] and (3) provide the generic manufacturers a guaranteed license to sell brand-name Cipro at a reduced rate for six months prior to the patent's expiration. In exchange, Barr conceded the patent's validity and agreed not to market a generic version of Cipro prior to the patent's expiration. [9]