IP monetization refers to a wide range of activities to realize value from intellectual property rights ownership. It includes traditional licenses, IP auctions, investors that finance IP development or litigation, patent assertion entities (PAEs), patent pools, strategic IP acquisition...

This Supreme Court amicus brief, filed in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson, explains why exclusion-payment settlements, by which brand-name drug companies pay generic firms to delay entering the market, contravene the policies of patent law, antitrust law, and the Hatch-Waxman Act. It...

In the Cephalon case, Judge Goldberg (ED Pa) denied defendants' summary judgment motions, sending the second reverse-payment-settlement case to trial. This short article analyzes the judge's decision, in particular addressing the appropriate liability standard under FTC v. Actavis and what...

The pharmaceutical industry is unique in its complexity. Markets are nuanced. Multiple regulatory regimes apply. Generic entry is an event with dramatic consequences. These characteristics have encouraged brand-name drug firms to engage in an array of conduct that exploits this complexity to...

In the summer of 2016, Mylan found itself under fire for high EpiPen prices. Between 2009 and 2016, Mylan raised the price of this life-saving device, which delivers epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis shock, 15 times, resulting in an increase of more than 400%. The medicine in an EpiPen costs only...

Korea's Fair Trade Commission revised its Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights under Korea's Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in early 2016. Earlier, 4 sections of the American Bar Association submitted comments on revisions to these guidelines. This paper...

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court issued one of the most important antitrust decisions in the modern era. It held that a brand drug company’s payment to a generic firm to settle patent litigation and delay entering the market could violate the antitrust laws. Since the decision, courts have...

Whenever Congress considers reasonable legislation to lower drug prices, we hear that this will be the "end of innovation." This short piece compares Big Pharma to the boy who cried wolf, offering numerous examples (going back to 1961!) of the industry claiming that legislation will harm innovation

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court ruled that settlements by which brand drug companies pay generics to delay entering the market could violate antitrust law. In In the Matter of Impax Laboratories, the FTC offered its first elaboration upon this framework. On behalf of all 5 members,...

When a brand drug firm reformulates its product, encourages doctors to prescribe the new version, and can offer no justification other than harming generic rivals, antitrust liability should be on the table. We thus disagree with Jack E. Pace III and Kevin C. Adam, who would limit antitrust...