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.
CRA consultants nominated for 2022 Antitrust Writing Awards
Several CRA consultants and academic affiliates have been nominated for Antitrust Writing Awards. The awards aim to promote antitrust scholarship and...