Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief supporting manufacturers’ rights to innovation in a pharmaceutical litigation suit and arguing that the manufacturer is not liable for anticompetitive conduct by patenting incremental innovations. The plaintiff brought this antitrust lawsuit alleging “product hopping” that ostensibly provided no significant improvements but prevented filling prescriptions automatically with generics. If accepted, this theory would have created a rule that is at odds with antitrust law and severely hindered innovation. The NAM’s brief argued that 1) a robust intellectual property regime is critical to creative activity and investments necessary to innovate; and 2) intellectual property developers often will make the necessary investments only if they are able to recover the costs. In a win for manufacturers, the court held against the appellant.