The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recognizes that a product hopping in the face of a “patent cliff” can constitute conduct in violation of the antitrust laws (Mayne / Warner Chilcott / Mylan)

The Third Circuit’s recent product-hopping decision in Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co (“Doryx”) [1] has been widely criticized by commentators as breaking with established antitrust precedent. Mylan, the last remaining plaintiff in the case following a series of settlements at the district court level, has petitioned for rehearing, which both the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and American Antitrust Institute (“AAI”) agree is warranted in light of potential harm to consumers. Regardless of whether en banc review is granted, the Doryx opinion recognized that product hopping in the face of a “patent cliff” can constitute conduct in violation of the antitrust laws.Id. at 41 n. 89. A “patent cliff” occurs when the patents protecting the exclusivity of a branded drug expire, and

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

  • Hausfeld (Philadelphia)

Citation

Katie R. Beran, The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recognizes that a product hopping in the face of a “patent cliff” can constitute conduct in violation of the antitrust laws (Mayne / Warner Chilcott / Mylan), 28 septembre 2016, e-Competitions September 2016, Art. N° 96367

Visites 61

Tous les numéros

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