This case involved a blood thinner drug whose initial patent had expired. The brand company improved the product and obtained additional patents on those improvements. A class alleged that the changes to the brand drug were not innovations or improvements, but rather were intended solely to extend the patent protection, thereby foreclosing generic entry (i.e., the plaintiffs alleged “product hopping”). A CRA expert provided economic analysis of the brand firm’s conduct and its impact on drug demand and competition.
A tale of two stakeholder groups in regulating healthcare AI
Despite significant spending on healthcare in the US, the industry is slow to adopt AI technology that can cut costs and improve efficiency. In this CPI...