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
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
EU to Scrutinize Telecom Italia’s Network Sale to KKR
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI