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.
Featured News
FTC Asks Appeals Court to Reinstate Expanded Merger Disclosure Rule
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Lawmakers Seek GAO Review of State and Federal AI Regulations
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
UK Flags Editorial Content Concerns in Getty-Shutterstock Merger
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
DOJ Examines Warner Bros. Sale as Theater Chains Voice Concerns
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Australia Court Fines Mobil A$16 Million Over Misleading Fuel Claims
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Gig Economy
Feb 19, 2026 by
CPI
Market Power and Governance Power: New Tools for Antitrust Enforcement in the Decentralized Gig Economy
Feb 19, 2026 by
Seth C. Oranburg
10 Years of Labor Antitrust Guidance: Lessons for Workers and the Gig Economy
Feb 19, 2026 by
Richard Powers & Michael Swerdlow
Antitrust & Gig Workers: Labor Exemption As Protection
Feb 19, 2026 by
Marina Lao
Beyond Non Competes: Platform Tethered Non Circumvention Clauses for Digital Platforms
Feb 19, 2026 by
Scott Nelson, Hugh Hollman & John Baker