Our analyses in complex antitrust matters build on our strengths in valuing intangible assets and determining damages from intellectual property infringement. Like our intellectual property litigation engagements, our antitrust assignments involve complex fact patterns and require a detailed analysis of markets and competition.
A number of these matters have involved situations in which pharmaceutical companies are alleged to have paid-for-delay entry of generic competition, inappropriately hopped products, or asserted collusion among competitors in defined markets. In these matters, we have provided opinions regarding the “fairness” of underlying agreements and royalty payments.
Provided opinions on the fair value of the benefits and services of multiple concurrent business arrangements between a branded manufacturer and multiple generic manufacturers that were alleged to be side-deals for facilitating payments for delayed generic entry.
Provided opinions on the commercial reasonableness of multiple transactions and other agreements between a branded manufacturer and a potential generic entrant that were alleged to be part of a pay-for-delay scheme by the branded manufacturer.
Provided an opinion regarding the fair market royalties due for the use of a patented technology in connection with a pay-for-delay claim filed against AstraZeneca, Ranbaxy, and Teva. This analysis focused on demonstrating that agreements to settle an ANDA litigation resulted in fair payments in light of potential damages and resulting in potential royalties.
Advised a generic manufacturer in an antitrust litigation over an alleged product hop to delay generic entry. This analysis quantified the damages suffered by a generic manufacturer due to the alleged product hop by the branded manufacturer. The generic manufacturer settled.
Experienced experts and consultants for challenging problems.