IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v16y2020i2p188-219..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generic Entry Before the Agreed-Upon Date in Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements

Author

Listed:
  • Keith M Drake
  • Thomas G McGuire

Abstract

Drug patent litigation settlements specify a date for generic entry and typically include a so-called acceleration clause allowing the generic to enter earlier in certain circumstances. An agreed-upon date between a brand and a generic with “first-filer” status is particularly salient because this date also affects when other generics may enter. It has been unclear the degree to which acceleration clauses increase competition—by accelerating entry—or decrease competition, by deterring pursuit of entry by potential generic competitors. This paper documents the entry outcome after first-filer-brand settlements by tracking how often acceleration clauses in these settlements in fact accelerate entry. In no case was a first filer’s 180-day exclusivity period accelerated because of a later filing generic winning patent litigation or settling for an earlier entry date. In the cases where early entry occurred, the first filer had lost its right to the exclusivity period, typically by failing to receive tentative FDA approval within 30 months of its filing; or other generics shared first-filer status. An acceleration clause paired with the 180-day exclusivity period appears to effectively deter other generics and, at least in the instances we observed, never to have resulted in an actual “accelerated” entry.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith M Drake & Thomas G McGuire, 2020. "Generic Entry Before the Agreed-Upon Date in Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 188-219.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:16:y:2020:i:2:p:188-219.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhaa007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:16:y:2020:i:2:p:188-219.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.