Dickey Bret, Orszag Jonathan, Tyson Laura
Compas Lexecon, USA.
Ann Health Law. 2010 Winter;19(2):367-400, 2 p preceding i.
This article demonstrates that in recent years, patent settlements between branded and generic manufacturers involving "reverse payments" from branded manufacturers to generic manufacturers have received close antitrust scrutiny, driven by concerns that such settlements harm consumers by delaying the entry of lower-priced generic drugs. The authors note that such settlements will be a focus of the Obama Administration's antitrust enforcement policy, yet there is a growing consensus among the courts that such settlements are anticompetitive only under narrow sets of circumstances. In this article, the authors present an analytical framework for evaluating the competitive effects of patent settlements, including those involving reverse payments, and demonstrate that these settlements can benefit consumers. Thus, the authors conclude that while continued scrutiny of such settlements is important, broad brush treatments are inappropriate and only a more individualized evaluation can correctly determine the competitive effects of a particular settlement agreement.
本文表明,近年来,品牌药制造商与仿制药制造商之间涉及品牌药制造商向仿制药制造商进行“反向支付”的专利和解协议受到了反垄断的密切审查,原因是人们担心此类和解协议会因推迟低价仿制药的上市而损害消费者利益。作者指出,此类和解协议将成为奥巴马政府反垄断执法政策的重点,但法院之间的共识日益增多,即此类和解协议仅在有限的特定情形下才具有反竞争性。在本文中,作者提出了一个分析框架,用于评估专利和解协议(包括那些涉及反向支付的协议)的竞争效果,并证明这些和解协议能够使消费者受益。因此,作者得出结论,虽然对此类和解协议继续进行审查很重要,但一概而论的处理方式并不恰当,只有进行更具个性化的评估才能正确确定某一特定和解协议的竞争效果。