A CRA expert was retained in an antitrust matter involving patent settlement agreements between branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that involved so-called ‘reverse payments’. Plaintiffs alleged that the agreements involved a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets, and that this conspiracy involved an exclusionary scheme to maintain a monopoly. CRA’s expert determined that generic versions of the drug would not likely have entered earlier absent the settlement agreements, the relevant market included competing branded products, and the agreements were not anticompetitive.
Does your merger trigger Canada’s “rebuttable structural presumption”?
This article, authored by CRA’s Ian Cass, provides a brief reference guide along with a visual tool to help assess whether a merger meets the prescribed market...