Category Archives: Antitrust

Subscribe to Antitrust RSS Feed

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on “Pay for Delay” Agreements

On March 25, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers. Reverse payment agreements settle patent infringement actions brought by a brand-name drug manufacturer against a potential generic competitor under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In contrast to typical settlements of … Continue Reading

Banning “Pay-For Delay” Settlements and Resale Price Maintenance are Senate Antitrust Subcommittee’s Top Legislative Priorities

By Robert Magielnicki In a recent interview, Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, discussed the subcommittee’s legislative priorities for 2010. At the top of the list is passage of the Preserve Affordable Access to Generics Act, which would prevent anticompetitive "pay-for-delay" patent settlements in … Continue Reading

DOJ Antitrust Chief Promises Careful Monitoring of Health Insurance Market While Encouraging Innovation and Efficiency in Health Care Delivery

By Robert Magielnicki In a May 24, 2010 speech to the Antitrust in Healthcare Conference, Christine A. Varney, the Chief of DOJ’s Antitrust Division, emphasized the importance of antitrust enforcement in preserving vigorous competition in health insurance markets, and of encouraging innovation and efficiency in health care delivery while preserving competitive markets.  … Continue Reading

Antitrust Division Will Not Challenge Cost Information Exchange Program in California

By Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale In a Business Review Letter[1] dated April 26, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (hereinafter, “the Division”) stated that it would not challenge a data sharing program proposed by three health care associations located in California. From the Division’s vantage point, the program posed little risk of facilitating anticompetitive conduct; rather, … Continue Reading
LexBlog

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree