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
Florida Sues Prime Therapeutics, Express Scripts Over Alleged Price Fixing
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
Iowa, Montana Ask Supreme Court to Halt Paramount Merger Challenge
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
Google Reaches £260 Million Deal to Settle UK App Developer Case
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
KKR Agrees to Record $250 Million Penalty in US Merger-Filing Case
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
Poland Seeks €250 Million EU Fine Against Meta Over Scam Ads
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – State Attorneys General
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
CPI Talks… with Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
Aug 27, 2026 by
Jonathan Skrmetti
What the Live Nation Jury Instructions Tell Us About California’s Unfair Competition Law
Aug 27, 2026 by
Henry Hauser, Brent Nakamura, Ashley Kaplan, Brian Wang & Cari Jeffries
From Backroom Deals to Public Scrutiny: The Tunney Act’s Past, Present, and Future
Aug 27, 2026 by
Christina M. Black & Ashley A. Locke
Understanding the Fragility of Economic Concentration Through the Principles of Ecology
Aug 27, 2026 by
Alexandra Spring