This case involved a blood thinner drug whose initial patent had expired. The brand company improved the product and obtained additional patents on those improvements. A class alleged that the changes to the brand drug were not innovations or improvements, but rather were intended solely to extend the patent protection, thereby foreclosing generic entry (i.e., the plaintiffs alleged “product hopping”). A CRA expert provided economic analysis of the brand firm’s conduct and its impact on drug demand and competition.
CRA engagements win in 2024 GCR Awards
The high-profile acquisition of Activision by Microsoft, which CRA Competition’s teams advised on was named overall Matter of the Year, as well as Matter of...