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.
Private equity and competition—Comparing US agency views to recent policy and empirical evidence
The Biden-era Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) have made no secret of their intention to closely scrutinize...