2013University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository (University of Missouri)Open access

A Cure for Collusive Settlements: The Case for a per Se Prohibition on Pay-for-Delay Agreements in Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation

Michael D. Owens

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Cure for Collusive Settlements: The Case for a per Se Prohibition on Pay-for-Delay Agreements in Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation — Research Paper | ScholarLens