To read this content please select one of the options below:

Actavis, Authorized Generics, and the Future of Antitrust Law

Healthcare Antitrust, Settlements, and the Federal Trade Commission

ISBN: 978-1-78756-600-2, eISBN: 978-1-78756-599-9

Publication date: 29 August 2018

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. is a challenge to conventional antitrust analysis. Conventional civil antitrust cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that conduct challenged under the rule of reason is only condemned if the conduct resulted in more competitive harm in the actual world than a world without the alleged violation. Under conventional analysis, the intent of the parties also plays only a supporting role in determining whether the conduct was anticompetitive. A holder of a valid patent has a right to exclude others practicing the patented technology. And, the patent holder is not assumed to have market power because it expended resources in maintaining exclusionary rights. Actavis creates doubts about these propositions in circumstances beyond the “reverse” payment settlement of a patent suit that may have delayed an alleged infringer market entry. This chapter explores whether applying Actavis logic to antitrust litigation can result in condemnation of practices where there is little chance of an anticompetitive effect, where the patent holder likely has a valid and infringed patent, where there is little reason to believe that the patent holder has market power, and where only one party, or no parties, to an agreement have an anticompetitive intent. This chapter also investigates whether Actavis creates new problems with standing analysis, damages calculations, and the balancing of efficiencies against anticompetitive effects. Nevertheless, the lower courts have begun to extend the logic of Actavis. This is apparent in the condemnation of no-Authorized-generic settlements.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Marc Lemley, James Langenfeld, Oliver Grawe, David Burns, and Sarah Swain for helpful comments.

Citation

Schildkraut, M.G. (2018), "Actavis, Authorized Generics, and the Future of Antitrust Law", Healthcare Antitrust, Settlements, and the Federal Trade Commission (Research in Law and Economics, Vol. 28), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 25-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-589520180000028002

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited