This case involved a blood thinner drug whose initial patent had expired. The brand company improved the product and obtained additional patents on those improvements. A class alleged that the changes to the brand drug were not innovations or improvements, but rather were intended solely to extend the patent protection, thereby foreclosing generic entry (i.e., the plaintiffs alleged “product hopping”). A CRA expert provided economic analysis of the brand firm’s conduct and its impact on drug demand and competition.
Insights from the final panel at the CRA Brussels Conference 2025: Shaping the future of digital regulation and competition
The closing panel from 2025 CRA Brussels Conference, “Digital Regulation in Action: The DMA, AI, and the Future of Competition” moderated by Dr Matteo Foschi