By: Jamie Towey, Bureau of Competition | Mar 30, 2016 3:41PM
For more than 15 years, one of the FTC’s top priorities has been to put an end to anticompetitive reverse-payment settlements between brand-name drug makers and their potential generic rivals. In our view, these settlements are anticompetitive agreements not to compete in which the brand pays the generic to refrain from marketing a lower cost, generic product for a period of time.
Antitrust Violation vs. Injury-in-Fact: A distinction that makes a difference
By: Dan Butrymowicz, Bureau of Competition | Feb 26, 2016 11:16AM
There is a basic but important difference between antitrust cases brought by the government and those brought by private parties: All plaintiffs, including government enforcers like the FTC, must prove an antitrust violation, which requires showing harm to competition. But private plaintiffs must make an additional showing: to establish antitrust ‘standing,’ private plaintiffs must prove that the antitrust violation caused harm to them.
Continue Reading Antitrust Violation vs. Injury-in-Fact: A distinction that makes a difference
Is FTC v. Actavis Causing Pharma Companies to Change Their Behavior?
By: Jamie Towey and Brad Albert, Bureau of Competition | Jan 13, 2016 1:00PM
Since 2004, brand-name and generic drug manufacturers have filed certain agreements with the FTC and DOJ as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (also known as MMA filings).
Continue Reading Is FTC v. Actavis Causing Pharma Companies to Change Their Behavior?
Generic drug firms deter entry by lowering price
By: Steven Tenn and Brett Wendling, Bureau of Economics | Jun 13, 2014 3:51PM
In a recently published article, we discuss our finding that generic drug companies successfully use low-pricing strategies to discourage entry by new competitors in certain circumstances.
Continue Reading Generic drug firms deter entry by lowering price
