I am honored to have been asked by the editors of the University of Illinois Law Review to comment on Professor Michael Carrier's new article, Biologics: The New Antitrust Frontier. His article - coauthored with Carl Minniti, a recent graduate of his law school - continues a large body of work that considers the application of antitrust law to the pharmaceutical industry. In this body of work, Professor Carrier has consistently identified a variety of actions taken by innovative (and sometimes generic) drug companies as actually or potentially collusive or anticompetitive. These include patent litigation settlements with reverse payments or other terms beneficial to accused infringers (called "pay for delay" by their critics), launch of newer versions of innovative products near the time of generic approval and market launch ("product hopping" by critics), decisions not to provide generic competitors with samples of certain higher risk products for use in comparative testing unless certain conditions are met ("REMS abuse" by critics), and certain citizen petitions that raise scientific and legal concerns about pending generic drug applications ("sham petitions" by critics).
A Solution in Search of a Problem at the Biologics Frontier, 2018 University of Illinois Law Review Online 19
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/963