California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB824

Introduced
2/20/19  
Refer
3/4/19  
Refer
3/4/19  
Report Pass
3/27/19  
Report Pass
3/27/19  
Refer
3/27/19  
Refer
3/27/19  
Report Pass
4/9/19  
Refer
4/11/19  
Refer
4/11/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Report Pass
5/16/19  
Report Pass
5/16/19  
Engrossed
5/24/19  
Refer
5/24/19  
Refer
6/6/19  
Refer
6/6/19  
Report Pass
6/17/19  
Report Pass
6/17/19  
Refer
6/17/19  
Report Pass
7/5/19  
Report Pass
7/5/19  
Refer
7/5/19  
Refer
7/5/19  
Report Pass
7/10/19  
Refer
7/11/19  
Refer
8/12/19  
Refer
8/12/19  
Report Pass
9/3/19  
Report Pass
9/3/19  
Enrolled
9/12/19  
Enrolled
9/12/19  
Chaptered
10/7/19  
Chaptered
10/7/19  
Passed
10/7/19  

Caption

Business: preserving access to affordable drugs.

Impact

The legislation modifies existing antitrust laws in California, specifically addressing agreements tied to drug patents under the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Practices Act. It includes mechanisms for the Attorney General to impose civil penalties for violations, which could result in substantial fines based on the severity of noncompliance. Additionally, this law aims to enhance the enforcement of competition laws by making it easier to challenge potentially harmful agreements that may delay the introduction of affordable pharmaceuticals into the market.

Summary

Assembly Bill 824, titled 'Business: preserving access to affordable drugs', aims to regulate agreements related to patent infringement in the pharmaceutical industry. The bill presumes that agreements made to resolve patent infringement claims will have anticompetitive effects if certain conditions are met, particularly if a nonreference drug filer receives something of value and agrees to limit its activities. This presumption is a significant shift intended to foster competition in the drug market by scrutinizing practices that could hinder market entry for generic drugs.

Sentiment

Initial sentiment surrounding AB 824 has largely been supportive among consumer advocacy groups and legislators focused on healthcare access, who view the bill as a critical step towards reducing drug prices and promoting market fairness. However, there are concerns from pharmaceutical companies about the implications of the expanded regulatory scrutiny. Some industry representatives argue that the restrictions could stifle innovation and discourage investment in new products, highlighting a dichotomy between public health interests and business operations.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the bill's presumption of anticompetitive effects on patent settlement agreements, which could be seen as an infringement on the rights of companies to negotiate settlements. Furthermore, the potential for civil penalties raises questions about legal liability and how aggressively companies will pursue patent resolutions in the fear of punitive repercussions. The balance between fostering competition and ensuring robust business operations presents an ongoing debate for stakeholders across the spectrum.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CT HB06619

An Act Concerning Prohibiting Pay For Delay.

RI H5913

Provides that an agreement resolving a patent infringement claim, in connection with the sale of a pharmaceutical product, is to be presumed to have anticompetitive effects if a nonreference drug filer receives anything of value.

CT SB00269

An Act Concerning The Availability Of Generic Pharmaceuticals.

CT SB00251

An Act Concerning The Availability Of Generic Pharmaceuticals.

US SB1096

Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act

US SB142

Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act

US HB6275

Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2023

NY A02289

Enacts the manufacturer disclosure and transparency act requiring prescription drug manufacturers to notify the attorney general of arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers resulting in the delay of the introduction of generic medications.