A US district court dismisses claims of conspiracy to protect a monopoly by "product hopping", citing risk to slow or halt pharmaceutical innovation (Mylan / Warner Chilcott)

Product Hopping and Antitrust: Mylan Court Dismisses Claims on Summary Judgment, Citing Need to Avoid Chilling Pharmaceutical Innovation* A recent summary judgment opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania breaks new ground in the developing antitrust law on “product hopping” claims. “Product hopping” refers to the practice of changing the form or dosage of a branded drug without changing its underlying composition. Though drug manufacturers often make such changes for legitimate business reasons, they may also – thanks to the vagaries of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval processes – have the effect of preventing a generic competitor from entering the market as soon as it otherwise could have. Back in February, this blog explained this

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • BakerHostetler (Philadelphia)

Quotation

Jeffry W. Duffy, A US district court dismisses claims of conspiracy to protect a monopoly by "product hopping", citing risk to slow or halt pharmaceutical innovation (Mylan / Warner Chilcott), 16 April 2015, e-Competitions Bulletin Burden of proof, Art. N° 73549

Visites 76

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues