American Cyanamid Company v. FTC
| Decision Date | 16 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | 15806,15797,No. 15805,15788.,15801,15805 |
| Parties | AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. BRISTOL-MYERS COMPANY and Bristol Laboratories Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. CHAS. PFIZER & CO., Inc., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. The UPJOHN COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Gerhard A. Gesell, Washington, D. C., Nestor S. Foley, Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., on brief; Murray D. Welch, Jr., Kalamazoo, Mich., of counsel, for petitioner Upjohn Co.
Merrell E. Clark, Jr., New York City, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City, on brief; Peter H. Kaminer, Terence H. Benbow, Harry A. Garfield, New York City, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert T. Keeler, Paul R. Moran, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel, for petitioners Bristol-Myers Co. and Bristol Laboratories, Inc.
John E. F. Wood, New York City, and Arthur G. Connolly, Wilmington, Del., Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, New York City, Thomas S. Lodge, Connolly, Bove & Lodge, Wilmington, Del., Frost & Jacobs, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief; Charles E. Stewart, Jr., Judson A. Parsons, Jr., and Robert M. Shea, New York City, of counsel, for petitioner Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.
Richard Y. Holcomb and Walter R. Mansfield, New York City, Ralstone R. Irvine, and Kenneth N. Hart, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, Powell McHenry, Dinsmore, Shohl, Barrett, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for petitioner American Cyanamid Co.
Allen F. Maulsby, New York City, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, on brief; Alan J. Hruska, W. Frazier Scott and John F. Bradley, New York City, of counsel, for petitioner Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation.
Frederick H. Mayer, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., James McI. Henderson, General Counsel, J. B. Truly, Asst. General Counsel, Jerold D. Cummins, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.
Arnold & Porter, Paul A. Porter, Abe Krash, John D. Hawke, Jr., Daniel A. Rezneck, Washington, D. C., Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, George B. Finnegan, Jr., Hobart N. Durham, Jerome G. Lee, David H. Pfeffer, New York City, for McKesson & Robbins, Inc., amici curiæ.
Before O'SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.
This case presents for review an order of the Federal Trade Commission holding that petitioners violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,1 in connection with the production and sale of tetracycline, which is described as "currently the best selling wonder drug in the United States."2
Tetracycline, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, is sold and distributed under various trade names by all five petitioners: Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. ("Pfizer"), American Cyanamid Company ("Cyanamid"), Bristol-Myers Company and Bristol Laboratories ("Bristol"), Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation through its E. R. Squibb & Sons Division ("Squibb") and the Upjohn Company ("Upjohn"). Pfizer owns the patent on tetracycline and produces it in addition to selling and distributing.
Under licenses granted by Pfizer, Cyanamid and Bristol also produce this antibiotic as well as selling and distributing it. Squibb and Upjohn sell and distribute by authority of licenses granted by Pfizer.
Also involved are two older antibiotics: (1) chlortetracycline, which is produced and sold by Cyanamid, owner of its patents, as aureomycin; and (2) oxtetracycline, which is produced and sold by Pfizer, owner of its patent, as terramycin.
Antibiotics are chemical substances produced by certain microorganisms. They have the capacity to counteract and cure a broad variety of diseases. At the end of World War II, penicillin was the principal antibiotic. It was a "narrow-spectrum" drug with more limited effectiveness than the later "broad-spectrum" antibiotics. Penicillin was not patented. Its production and sale proved to be fiercely competitive and profits were marginal.
The antibiotics involved in this case were described by the Commission as follows:
When Cyanamid obtained a patent on aureomycin in 1949, the molecular structure of that drug was not known. The patent application described it in terms of certain secondary chemical properties. In 1952 the molecular structure was discovered, and a Pfizer scientist speculated that an antibiotic of at least equal strength could be produced by altering only slightly the structure of aureomycin. The result was a vastly improved antibiotic, tetracycline, which first was produced by Pfizer scientists in 1952.
Within six months of the discovery of tetracycline, both Pfizer and Cyanamid filed applications for patents.3 The Patent Office declared an interference, which was settled as a result of a private cross-licensing agreement between Pfizer and Cyanamid to the effect that the party found to have priority would license the other. Thereafter Cyanamid conceded priority to Pfizer and withdrew its application.
Bristol then filed a patent application. A second interference was declared. The patent examiner filed an opinion which concluded that tetracycline was unpatentable. Pfizer thereupon submitted affidavits to the effect that tetracycline could not be recovered from broths representative of those described in the Cyanamid patent application on aureomycin. Shortly afterwards a product patent was issued to Pfizer.
The proceedings before the Commission primarily were concerned with the events leading up to the issuance of the tetracycline patent to Pfizer, which are described in some detail later in this opinion, the subsequent conduct of Pfizer and Cyanamid in exploiting the patent and the conduct by the five petitioners which the Commission found to constitute a conspiracy to fix the price of this drug.
The Commission's complaint, filed July 28, 1958, charged that Pfizer made false, misleading and incorrect statements to, and withheld material information from, the Patent Office for the purpose and with the effect of inducing the issuance of a patent on tetracycline; and that Cyanamid and Bristol withheld from the Patent Office material information in the course of the prosecution of the patent applications, as a result of which Pfizer was aided in obtaining its tetacycline patent.
It was further charged that, while both of their patent applications were pending, Pfizer and Cyanamid agreed that they would settle privately between themselves the question of which had priority on the invention of tetracycline, after which they would cooperate in securing the awarding of a patent to the winner; that the owner of the patent then would license the unsuccessful party; and that the two would exchange information concerning the production of this drug.
The complaint avers that, pursuant to the terms of this prior agreement, Pfizer issued a license to Cyanamid to manufacture and sell the newly patented antibiotic. Cyanamid agreed to license Pfizer to use the process covered by the aureomycin patents in the production of tetracycline,4 to furnish cultures and procedures for this purpose and to provide to Pfizer a quantity of bulk tetracycline so as to cut down the lead time that Cyanamid then had in the commercial marketing of the drug.
The complaint further charges that in March 1956, as a part of a settlement of an infringement suit brought by Pfizer, the latter also granted a license to Bristol to manufacture and sell tetracycline and, at the same time, licensed Squibb and Upjohn to sell this drug. It is further averred that all five petitioners fixed and maintained arbitrary and rigid prices through conspiracy and combination; and that petitioners have violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act in that the activities of Pfizer before the patent office had and continue to have the effect of hindering,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo and Trantolo
...courts have construed the FTC Act as jurisdictionally in pari materia with the Sherman Act. E.g., American Cyanamid Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 363 F.2d 757, 770 (6th Cir.1966); see also Island Tobacco Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., 513 F.Supp. 726, 737 (D.Hawaii 1981). In ligh......
-
Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
... ... CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION OFFICE OF the ATTORNEY GENERAL ... CONSUMER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC ... 88 Sept. Term, 1984 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... Dec. 13, 1985 ... Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. F.T.C., 425 F.2d 583 (D.C.Cir.1970); American Cyanamid Co. v. F.T.C., 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir.1966); Trans World Airlines v. C.A.B., 254 F.2d 90 ... ...
-
Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States
...Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246-247, 250, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944); American Cyanamid Co. v. F. T. C., 363 F.2d 757, 772-779 (6th Cir. 1966), on remand, 3 CCH Trade Reg.Rep. ¶ 18,077 (Sept. 29, 1967). This is of course equally true in an administrative There ha......
-
Crump v. Board of Educ. of Hickory Administrative School Unit
...him or not. "It is fundamental that both unfairness and the appearance of unfairness should be avoided." American Cyanamid Company v. F.T.C., 363 F.2d 757, 767 (6th Cir.1966); see State v. Mettrick, 305 N.C. 383, 385, 289 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1982). Damages awardable under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ac......
-
Intellectual Property Antitrust Issues in Litigation
...licensing to alleviate the effects of an antitrust violation was established almost fifty years ago. See American Cyanamid Co. v. FTC, 363 F.2d 757, 771-72 (6th Cir. 1966) (holding that FTC was authorized, where appropriate, to require compulsory licensing on a reasonable royalty basis); Ch......
-
Table of cases
...1494 (9th Cir. 1997), 233 In re American Cyanamid Co., 72 F.T.C. 623, 1967 FTC LEXIS 43 (1967), 353, 459 American Cyanamid Co. v. FTC, 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1966), 350, 459 American Equip. v. Wikomi Mfg., 630 F.2d 544 (7th Cir. 1980), 147 American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.......
-
Organization
...generally Safeway Stores v. FTC, 366 F.2d 795, 802 (9th Cir. 1966). 63. 16 C.F.R. § 4.17(b)(3). 64. Compare American Cyanamid Co. v. FTC, 363 F.2d 757, 764 (6th Cir. 1966) (noting that past expression of policy insufficient to trigger disqualification), with Cinderella Career, 425 F.2d at 5......
-
Procedural Issues in Investigations, Enforcement Actions, and Other Commission Activities
...(9th Cir. 1984). 97. See Ekco Prods. Co., 65 F.T.C. 1163, 1213 (1964), aff’d , 347 F.2d 745 (7th Cir. 1965); American Cyanamid Co. v. FTC, 363 F.2d 757, 771-72 (6th Cir. 1966). 98. See Colgate-Palmolive, 380 U.S. at 395; Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 326 (7th Cir. 1992). 99. See Litton ......