The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that the reverse payment settlement between branded and generic pharma companies did not violate the antitrust laws because the exclusionary effect of the agreement did not exceed the scope of the patent (Tamoxifen Citrate)

Over the past decade, practitioners, policy makers and commentators have increasingly debated the issues involved when the antitrust laws intersect with patent rights. Both the antitrust and patent laws are designed to promote competition and, as a result, societal wellbeing. However, the two legal regimes attempt to accomplish this goal through alternative means – the antitrust laws seek to reduce market power and eliminate most monopolies, while the patent laws seek to bestow certain exclusive rights in order to encourage research and innovation. As such, there can be friction between the antitrust and patent laws in certain unique circumstances. Perhaps nowhere is this more prevalent than in the pharmaceutical industry. Over the last century, brand name drug companies have

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

  • Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider (Hartford)

Quotation

Chad A. Landmon, The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that the reverse payment settlement between branded and generic pharma companies did not violate the antitrust laws because the exclusionary effect of the agreement did not exceed the scope of the patent (Tamoxifen Citrate), 10 August 2006, e-Competitions Bulletin August 2006, Art. N° 52999

Visites 152

All issues

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