Reversing the Trend? The Possibility that Rule Changes May Lead to Fewer Reverse Payments in Pharma Settlements
Anne Layne-Farrar, Nov 01, 2009
This article begins by laying out a simple framework that makes obvious the incentives at play in generic drug entry, brand challenges, and settlements between the two. Once this common understanding has been established, several rule changes that have taken place are summarized one in the form of an amendment to Hatch-Waxman and another in a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. These institutional changes may have the consequence of reducing the prevalence of reverse payments. This possibility suggests a different policy tact might be called for, one that shifts emphasis from determining whether or not reverse payments should be per se illegal to working with the incentives that firms already face and exploiting those incentives to reduce firms inclinations to enter into anticompetitive reverse-payment settlements.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh