Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1736822
 
 

Citations (2)



 


 



Earning Exclusivity: Generic Drug Incentives and the Hatch-Waxman Act


C. Scott Hemphill


Columbia University - Law School

Mark A. Lemley


Stanford Law School

January 7, 2011

Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 77, p. 947, 2011
Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 405
Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 391

Abstract:     
“Reverse” or “exclusion” payments to settle pharmaceutical patent lawsuits are facilitated because the Hatch-Waxman Act has been interpreted to give 180 days of generic exclusivity to the first generic company to file for FDA approval, whether or not that company succeeds in invalidating the patent or finding a way to avoid infringement. As a result, the patentee can “buy off” the first generic entrant, paying them to delay their entry into the market while still offering them the valuable period of generic exclusivity. And if that first generic is entitled to its 180 days, no one else can enter until after the exclusivity period has expired or been forfeited. The result is that the 180-day exclusivity period is not serving its purpose of eliminating weak patents. True, it is encouraging lots of challenges to those patents. But it is encouraging the challengers to accept compensation to drop those challenges, rather than taking them to judgment and benefiting the rest of the world.

We propose a change to the Hatch-Waxman statutory scheme. Our alternative is straightforward: first-filing generic drug companies should be entitled to 180 days of exclusivity only if they successfully defeat the patent owner, for example, by invalidating the patent or by proving that they did not infringe that patent. The point of 180-day exclusivity was to encourage challenges to patents because the invalidation of bad patents benefits society as a whole. Society doesn’t benefit from a private deal to drop a challenge. That doesn’t mean settlement is never a good idea; it is a commonplace in our legal system. But it seems bizarre to insulate a company from competition just because it settles the case. Indeed, we expect that our proposal, if implemented, would facilitate more rational settlements, in which the settlements that result accurately reflect the likelihood of success in litigation.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 44

Keywords: Patent, Hatch-Waxman, Antitrust, Pharmaceuticals, Regulation, Incentives

JEL Classification: K21

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 10, 2011 ; Last revised: July 28, 2013

Suggested Citation

Hemphill, C. Scott and Lemley, Mark A., Earning Exclusivity: Generic Drug Incentives and the Hatch-Waxman Act (January 7, 2011). Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 77, p. 947, 2011; Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 405; Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 391. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1736822

Contact Information

C. Scott Hemphill
Columbia University - Law School ( email )
435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States
Mark A. Lemley (Contact Author)
Stanford Law School ( email )
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,516
Downloads: 968
Download Rank: 11,620
Citations:  2

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.250 seconds