Most-Favored Entry Clauses in Drug Patent Litigation Settlements as a Potential Reverse Payment / Keith M. Drake, Thomas McGuire.

By:

Drake, Keith M

Contributor(s):

Material type: Text

TextSeries: Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) ; no. w29801.Publication details: Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2022.Description: 1 online resource: illustrations (black and white)Subject(s):

Online resources:

Available additional physical forms:

Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers

Abstract: Settlements of drug patent disputes that involve a potential payment from the brand to the generic signal a possible collusive profit split with a threat to competition, and have undergone intensive scrutiny in the literature on law and economics. A common feature of these brand-generic settlements, so-called "most-favored entry" (MFE) clauses, have not been investigated to the same extent. The expectation that brand drug companies make settlement decisions rationally implies that an otherwise unexplained brand payment above savings from expected future litigation costs derives from a delay in competition achieved by the settlement. This paper applies the condition of brand rationality to settlements with MFE clauses, with the added consideration that an MFE clause may affect two dates: the date of entry for the settling generic and the date of entry of third-party generic challengers. A brand payment from an MFE clause above future expected litigation costs implies delays in at least one and possibly two of these expected dates for competition. We find that MFE clauses can constitute a reverse payment. When a payment takes the form of an MFE clause, the pay-above-saved-litigation-cost criterion is, however, vulnerable to suggesting that a settlement is not anticompetitive, when in fact it is.

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Home library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode	Item holds
Working Paper	Biblioteca Digital	Colección NBER	nber w29801 (Browse shelf(Opens below))	Not For Loan

Total holds: 0

February 2022.

Settlements of drug patent disputes that involve a potential payment from the brand to the generic signal a possible collusive profit split with a threat to competition, and have undergone intensive scrutiny in the literature on law and economics. A common feature of these brand-generic settlements, so-called "most-favored entry" (MFE) clauses, have not been investigated to the same extent. The expectation that brand drug companies make settlement decisions rationally implies that an otherwise unexplained brand payment above savings from expected future litigation costs derives from a delay in competition achieved by the settlement. This paper applies the condition of brand rationality to settlements with MFE clauses, with the added consideration that an MFE clause may affect two dates: the date of entry for the settling generic and the date of entry of third-party generic challengers. A brand payment from an MFE clause above future expected litigation costs implies delays in at least one and possibly two of these expected dates for competition. We find that MFE clauses can constitute a reverse payment. When a payment takes the form of an MFE clause, the pay-above-saved-litigation-cost criterion is, however, vulnerable to suggesting that a settlement is not anticompetitive, when in fact it is.