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.
Trends in competition in the United States: what does the evidence show?
Has the United States economy become less competitive in recent decades? One might think so based on a body of research that has rapidly become influential for...