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
Italian Ski-Pass Operators Agree to €30 Million Payout After Antitrust Probe
Aug 8, 2026 by
CPI
Delaware Court Orders Verisk to Pursue $2.35 Billion AccuLynx Deal Despite FTC Review
Aug 8, 2026 by
CPI
Trump Pushes Back on AI Rules as Congress Weighs Tighter Controls
Aug 8, 2026 by
CPI
Warren Raises Antitrust Concerns Over Private Home Listings
Aug 8, 2026 by
CPI
PlayStation Antitrust Cases Put Closed Console Stores Under Scrutiny
Aug 8, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Antitrust Compliance
Jul 20, 2026 by
CPI
Your Antitrust Compliance Program: A Strong Voice in Your Defense
Jul 20, 2026 by
Joe Murphy
Antitrust Compliance for the AI Pricing Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Alejandra Uria & Andre Geverola
Race to Report: Antitrust Leniency in the Whistleblower Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Brian R. Faerstein & Nicole H. Sprinzen
Antitrust-By-Design: Competition Compliance in Digital Markets
Jul 20, 2026 by
Marcos Drummond Malvar, Gabriela Costa Carvalho Forsman & Luciana Mendes