CRA was retained by Defendants in this pay-for-delay litigation that went to trial. Plaintiffs included direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and opt-out direct purchasers. CRA was asked to address anticompetitive effects of the settlement, the value conferred on generic defendants, legitimate business purposes of the agreements, the appropriate antitrust market, and damages.
CRA’s work examined issues of causation, including the economic incentives and disincentives for whether a generic manufacturer would have entered the market at risk, whether the settlements foreclosed the entry of other generics, whether there were “large, unexplained” payments, and economic incentives for launching (or not launching) an authorized generic. CRA’s relevant market analysis examined reasonable interchangeability of use, including physician prescribing guidelines, the treatment of other products as economic substitutes by payors and competition for coverage by payors, price elasticities, market positioning, and generic entry. CRA’s damages analyses responded to plaintiffs’ experts and presented adjustments.
The case ultimately went to trial. The jury found for Defendants on anticompetitive effects.