Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund, et al., plaintiffs-appellants v. Bayer A.G. and Bayer Corp., et al., defendants-appellees
The plaintiffs in In re: Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (Cipro) Antitrust Litigation (consumers and advocacy groups), sued the the brand name antibiotic's manufacturer Bayer, and prospective manufacturers of cheaper generic version, claiming that the exclusion agreement under which proposed manufacturers agreed to defer entry into market until expiration of patent held by Bayer, in return for payments to be received from Bayer, was in violation of antitrust laws. This amicus brief supports the plaintiffs, arguing in part that the case should have been decided in federal circuit court and that exclusion payments are generally anticompetitive.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
11th Cir 19 Berkeley Tech 28 Professors 87 Minn accused infringer Agreements Filed alleged infringer Amici Curiae Anticompetitive Settlement antitrust law Attorney for Appellees Barr Laboratories Bureau of Competition Business and Economics Cardizem Carl Shapiro challenge Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Citrate Antitrust Litigation Curiae of 28 Defeating Patents district court district court's opinion Econ exclusion payment exclusionary settlement Federal Trade Commission Hatch-Waxman Act Herbert Hovenkamp Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation Incentives invalid Joseph Farrell Joseph Scott Miller Law Professor Law School Professor legality of exclusion Litigated Patents Loyola University Chicago Medicare Prescription Drug Nobelpharma party or amicus patent holder patent in question patent litigation patent owner Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement presumption of validity Principal Attorney Professors of Law public interest Richmond School Rugby Group Schering Plough Corp School of Law Second Circuit's settle Settlement of Patent Stanford Law School Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Unitherm University of Richmond Watson Pharmaceuticals Welfare Plan