EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Do "Reverse Payment" Settlements of Brand-Generic Patent Disputes in the Pharmaceutical Industry Constitute an Anticompetitive Pay for Delay?

Keith M. Drake, Martha Starr () and Thomas McGuire

No 20292, NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc

Abstract: Brand and generic drug manufacturers frequently settle patent litigation on terms that include a payment to the generic manufacturer along with a specified date at which the generic would enter the market. The Federal Trade Commission contends that these agreements extend the brand's market exclusivity and amount to anticompetitive divisions of the market. The parties involved defend the settlements as normal business agreements that reduce business risk associated with litigation. The anticompetitive hypothesis implies brand stock prices should rise with announcement of the settlement. We classify 68 brand-generic settlements from 1993 to the present into those with and without an indication of a "reverse payment" from the brand to the generic, and conduct an event study of the announcement of the patent settlements on the stock price of the brand. For settlements with an indication of a reverse payment, brand stock prices rise on average 6% at the announcement. A "control group" of brand-generic settlements without indication of a reverse payment had no significant effect on the brands' stock prices. Our results support the hypothesis that settlements with a reverse payment increase the expected profits of the brand manufacturer and are anticompetitive.

JEL-codes: I11 L41 L65 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014-07
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-com, nep-ind, nep-ipr, nep-pr~ and nep-law
Note: EH LE
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4) Track citations by RSS feed

Published as Keith M. Drake, Martha A. Starr & Thomas G. McGuire (2015) Do “Reverse Payment” Settlements Constitute an Anticompetitive Pay-for-Delay?, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 22:2, 173-200, DOI: 10.1080/13571516.2015.1045744

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20292.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20292

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20292

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().

 
Page updated 2024-02-18
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20292