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

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

Citation

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

Visites 407

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues