Fiona Scott Morton, Dec 20, 2013
This article lays out the economics of competition between branded and generic pharmaceuticals and its welfare consequences. I explain the logic behind so-called “pay-for-delay” or “reverse payments” in the context of the current IP environment where weak (probabilistic) patents are frequently granted by the PTO. The article goes on to relate the Supreme Court decision in Activis to these concepts. I argue that the “scope of a patent” is closely related to its probability of being valid. !e Supreme Court dissenting opinion states that IP owners should be allowed to operate within the scope of the patent. For a very weak patent, that might be a very limited scope and bring the dissent into agreement with the majority opinion that a weak patent owner should not be allowed to create market power where the patent did not grant it. However, the dissenting opinion closes with a rejection of using the concept of probabilistic patents in legal analysis.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Senators Urge DOJ and FTC to Investigate Formula 1 Over Rejection of Andretti Global
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Apple Fights €1.8 Billion EU Fine Over Music Streaming Competition
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
UK Payments Regulator Criticizes Visa and Mastercard Over Fee Hikes
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Global Leaders Pledge to Develop AI Technology Safely Amid Regulatory Challenges
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
French Competition Watchdog Raids EPC Groupe
May 20, 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