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.
An economic interpretation of Rule 23(b)(3) for antitrust classes
In this article, CRA’s Sean Durkin explains the economic incentives behind class definitions in antitrust cases and why those incentives can lead to classes...