E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Federal Circuit Sets Schedule for AMP v. USPTO | Main | News from Abroad: Enlarged Board of Appeal to Consider Breeding Processes Again »

April 30, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20168eaf61806970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (11th Cir. 2012):

Comments

Reverse payment is part of doing to business and one of the ways companies try to maximize their profits by taking challengers in their wings. All costs are passed on to the customers as they need the medicine to get well and extend their life. Monopoly extends profits.

On the other side of the coin if the companies are successful in their challenge then after six months we have multiple players producing the same drug. Their manufacturing processes are inefficient as their processes are inefficient and have no economies of scale. Yes their product is sold at lower price than the patented product but is sold at much higher price than what could be if the product could be produced using efficient technologies. Technology and competition is necessary to lower prices.

We have to recognize that even at the highest level of competition, every company’s charter is to maximize their profits.

Customers and physicians do not know the manufacturing cost of the single dose. A 10% reduction is satisfactory for them. The cost reduction opportunities are much higher. However charter of each company is to maximize their profits even under the strongest competitive conditions. Drug prices are sold on the sentiment “they get you well and extend life as no one wants to die”, thus priced at the highest level customer can afford.

I agree that the tug of war between the companies and FTC (or similar government agencies) is going to go on but a dark horse can upset the apple cart. I have echoed my perspective in “Pharmaceutical Reverse Payments and Lower Drug Costs: An Interesting Dilemma!” http://pharmachemicalscoatings.blogspot.com/2010/07/pharmaceutical-reverse-payments-and.html.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30