The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit offers misguided analysis of product hopping (Mayne / Warner Chilcott / Mylan)

On September 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a misguided ruling granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and ignoring the regulatory framework relevant to “product hopping,” by which a drug company switches from one version of a drug to another, sometimes to delay generic entry. Anticompetitive product hopping has a significant effect on consumers, who pay billions of dollars extra each year because of the conduct. Steve D. Shadowen et al., Anticompetitive Product Changes in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 49 Rutgers L.J. 1, 3 (2009). Factual background The case involves Doryx, an oral antibiotic prescribed to treat severe acne. Mylan Pharms. v. Warner Chilcott, 2016 WL 5403626, at *1 (3d Cir. Sept. 28, 2016). Mylan challenged an array of conduct

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

  • Rutgers University (New Jersey)

Quotation

Michael A. Carrier, The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit offers misguided analysis of product hopping (Mayne / Warner Chilcott / Mylan), 28 September 2016, e-Competitions Bulletin September 2016, Art. N° 81744

Visites 346

All issues

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