A Cure for Collusive Settlements: The Case for a per Se Prohibition on Pay-for-Delay Agreements in Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation
Michael D. Owens
Abstract
Open-access reader
Michael D. Owens
Abstract
Open-access reader
This Comment will examine how the particulars of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the regulatory scheme that governs generic competition in pharmaceutical industry, gives rise to reverse settlements in infringement litigation; review existing analysis of the pay for delay problem in judicial decisions, in academic commentary, and amongst antitrust enforcement bodies; and finally, draw upon a decision theoretic framework to propose per se illegality as the appropriate antitrust rule for pay-for-delay settlements.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This Comment will examine how the particulars of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the regulatory scheme that governs generic competition in pharmaceutical industry, gives rise to reverse settlements in infringement litigation; review existing analysis of the pay for delay problem in judicial decisions, in academic commentary, and amongst antitrust enforcement bodies; and finally, draw upon a decision theoretic framework to propose per se illegality as the appropriate antitrust rule for pay-for-delay settlements.
Key concepts: Patent infringement, Supreme court, Enforcement, Law, Payment, Business, Rule of reason, Human settlement