A group of economist has entered the scene within the Supreme Court and the current case made by the Federal Trade Commission against the so-called pay-for-delay deals in which brand-name drug makers pay their generic counterparts to stay off the shelves for some time. An amicus brief was filed last Friday on behalf of the economists arguing that the FTC does not present sufficient economic evidence to back its claims that pay-for-delay deals hurt consumers. Additionally, the economists are claiming the FTC’s definition of pay-for-delay, or reverse payments, is too broad, and that reverse payments are economically the same as other patent settlements in other markets.
Featured News
Air Canada Disputes Competition Bureau’s Report on Airline Market
Jun 22, 2025 by
CPI
CMA Initiates Market Study on UK Road and Railway Infrastructure Delivery
Jun 22, 2025 by
CPI
Turkey Opens Antitrust Investigation into Google Over Digital Advertising Practices
Jun 22, 2025 by
CPI
Florida Legislature Pushes for Tougher Noncompete Restrictions
Jun 22, 2025 by
CPI
Apple Explores Potential Acquisition of AI Startup Perplexity AI
Jun 22, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Theories of Harm
Jun 17, 2025 by
CPI
What Do We Mean by Harm to the Competitive Process?
Jun 17, 2025 by
Sean Sullivan
Is There a Better Approach to Vertical Merger Analysis?
Jun 17, 2025 by
Bob Majure & Andrew Sfekas
California’s Ill-Advised Turn Toward Europeanized Theories of Harm For Single-Firm Conduct
Jun 17, 2025 by
Geoffrey Manne, Dirk Auer & Brian Albrecht
EU Competition Policy in Support of Democracy and Sustainability: What Theories of Harm When Moving Away From the Predominance of the Consumer Welfare Paradigm?
Jun 17, 2025 by
Marios C. Iacovides