The California Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could give the pharmaceutical industry more guidance on the legality of so-called “pay-for-delay” agreements.
A class of consumers alleges that Bayer Corp. illegally paid several generic drugmakers nearly $400 million to postpone plans to release generic versions of the antibiotic Cipro.
“With a payment that size, what they’re paying for is insulation from competition,” Lemley said, arguing Bayer had no other justification for the deal, not even avoiding litigation costs.
Justice Goodwin Liu’s questions suggested he might be leaning toward a “but-for” test that would ask whether a generic version of the drug would have entered the market earlier but for the settlement, The Recorder reported.
Full Content: The Recorder
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Kenya’s Competition Authority Proposes Tougher Regulations on Big Tech
May 30, 2024 by
CPI
KKR Secures EU Antitrust Approval for $24 Billion Acquisition of Telecom Italia’s Fixed-Line Network
May 30, 2024 by
CPI
European Court Sides with Tech Giants in Italian Regulatory Dispute
May 30, 2024 by
CPI
US Steel and Nippon Steel Secure International Approvals for $14.9B Merger
May 30, 2024 by
CPI
EU Watchdog Mandates Boardroom Accountability for AI in Banks
May 30, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Merger Guidelines Retrospective
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Mergers of Complements
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Personality Traits, Private Equity, and Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Lessons in the Importance of Incipiency, Modern Economics, and Monopsony
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Sharpening Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI