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.
When Antitrust's Consumer Welfare Standard And ESG Collide
The consumer welfare standard has been a subject of intense interest and debate recently in the U.S., punctuated by the 19-hour debate session in Congress in...