A manufacturer of a Schedule II product entered into sequential patent settlement agreements that included product supply obligations. Following allegations from its partners that the manufacturer was using the patent settlements to adversely affect competition, CRA’s analysis demonstrated that there was no anticompetitive effect and that the supply agreements enhanced efficiency and competition, particularly when considering the Drug Enforcement Agency’s quota system for active ingredient supply for Schedule II products.
Why a hotel room in New York costs $500 a night
In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled “Why a Hotel Room in NY Costs $500,” Michael Salinger (CRA consultant and Boston University professor) and...