Author: Michael Carrier

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 delay generic entry. In this essay, I discuss these issues, focusing on two … Continue reading Pharmaceutical Antitrust Complexity…

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that a brand payment to a generic to delay entering the market could have “significant anticompetitive effects” and violate the antitrust laws. In a narrow, formalistic ruling, the New Jersey district court in In re Lamictal held that such payments were limited to cash. On November 19, … Continue reading Oral argument in 1st appellate case to consider payment under Actavis…

One of the most pressing issues in patent and antitrust law involves agreements by which brand-name drug companies pay generic firms to delay entering the market. In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that these settlements could violate the antitrust laws. And while the Court introduced a blueprint for analyzing the agreements, it anticipated … Continue reading How Not To Apply Actavis…

College athletics are in the news these days. One of the reasons: the O’Bannon decision, in which the court rejected the NCAA’s amateurism defense and found an antitrust violation when students were not paid for for the use of their names, images, and likenesses. In this article, Prof. Carrier summarizes the case as well as … Continue reading NCAA v. O’Bannon decision: A bombshell for college athletics…