NOV-14(2)

In this issue:

In the antitrust debate arena, health care topics are the gifts that just keep on giving—always something new to discuss, analyze, or understand. This issue focuses primarily on two segments, product hopping and pay-for-delay. The first paper describes and analyzes, while the next two papers contrast regulatory approaches. Then we present case studies of two countries presenting novel twists in the field—Canada, which has introduced criminal charges to pay-for-delay cases—and India, which has targeted the distribution chain, rather the manufacturers, for its antitrust focus.

Pharm Update

Michael Carrier, Nov 24, 2014

Pharmaceutical Antitrust Complexity

With layer piled upon layer, and defenses based on patents, innovation, and settlement that cannot easily be dismissed, brands are using complexity to their advantage. Michael Carrier (Rutgers Law School)

Michael Frese, Ingrid Vandenborre, Julia York, Nov 24, 2014

“Product Hopping” on Both Sides of the Pond: A Survey of U.S. and EU Case Law

The approaches in the United States and the European Union with respect to “product hops” appear to be similar in that direct, affirmative steps that prevent generic competition could give rise to antitrust scrutiny. Ingrid Vandenborre, Julia K. York, & Michael J. Frese (Skadden, Arps)

Jonathan Lutinski, Ryan Maddock, Seth Silber, Nov 25, 2014

“Good Luck” Post-Actavis: Current State of Play on “Pay-for-Delay” Settlements

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!