ARTICLE
5 November 2016

3rd Circ. Weighs In On Product-Hopping

W
WilmerHale

Contributor

WilmerHale provides legal representation across a comprehensive range of practice areas critical to the success of its clients. With a staunch commitment to public service, the firm is a leader in pro bono representation. WilmerHale is 1,000 lawyers strong with 12 offices in the United States, Europe and Asia.
On Sept. 28, 2016, in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co. (Doryx),[1] the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment rejecting antitrust claims brought against Warner Chilcott for alleged "product hopping" with respect to its drug Doryx (delayed-release doxycycline hyclate).
United States Antitrust/Competition Law

On Sept. 28, 2016, in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co. (Doryx),[1] the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment rejecting antitrust claims brought against Warner Chilcott for alleged "product hopping" with respect to its drug Doryx (delayed-release doxycycline hyclate). The court distinguished other product-hopping cases —including the recent Second Circuit decision in Namenda[2] — and held that the plaintiff, generic drug manufacturer Mylan, failed to put forth sufficient evidence that Warner Chilcott possessed monopoly power or engaged in anti-competitive conduct. While its decision turned on the particular facts of the case, the Third Circuit rejected several sweeping arguments that antitrust plaintiffs regularly advance in pharmaceutical antitrust cases.

Click here to continue reading

Originally published by Law360

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More