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