a brown bag lunch program presented by:

The ABA Section of Antitrust Law Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Committee &The Competition Law Center at
The George Washington University Law School

Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Noon - 1:30pm 

GW Law School
Jacob Burns Moot Court Room
(Lerner Hall, room L101)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20052

Patent holders have developed a variety of strategies to respond to entry that may follow the expiration of their patents.  “Line extensions,” obtaining additional patents on existing products, and the introduction of “authorized generics” are illustrative strategies used by pharmaceutical patent holders. 

Strategic responses to threatened entry raise policy issues for both antitrust and intellectual law.  For example, under what circumstances are the patents associated with line extensions sufficiently novel to be valid?  Do these strategies harm consumers by deterring entry or do they lead to improved products and/or lower prices?

In the case of pharmaceuticals, the FTC and courts have been grappling with these policy issues.  The FTC’s recently released Authorized Generics: An Interim Report and complaints that argue that line extensions may be part of an anticompetitive strategy, such as FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, are illustrative.

A panel of experts will discuss these issues, drawing from recent cases, the FTC’s recent report, and economic research to discuss these policy issues.

Program Chair:
Philip Nelson, Principal, Economists Incorporated (Washington, DC)

Moderator:
Craig S. Farringer, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (DC)

Panelists:Brad Albert, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Trade Commission (Washington, DC)
James Burling, Partner, WilmerHale (Boston)
Steve Shadowen, Partner, Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin (Harrisburg, PA)