David Shotlander , Partner
Haug Partners LLP
1) General: innovation is what improves society and productivity – it is something that society wants/needs more of and therefore it is encouraged and incentivized—it is rewarded. One reward for innovation is avoidance of competition. On the other hand, the entire field of antitrust responds to the economic evil of lacking competition. Innovation and antitrust create a natural tension, attract constant scrutiny and require a delicate balance.
2) In life sciences, innovation drives competition. Companies that discover and invent thrive. They thrive because PTO and FDA reward new inventions with lack of competition., such as patent rights, new product exclusivity, 30-month stays, etc. Exclusivity drives innovation. But exclusivity could also drive manipulation such that a non-innovator may seek the exclusivity afforded to innovators, and thus avoid competition improperly – patent fraud, sham patent litigation, anticompetitive settlements, product-hopping, etc. These examples are extremely prevalent in pharma antitrust, including former innovators who try to retain exclusivity beyond the allotted period.
3) Life sciences antitrust is built on challenging claims of innovation, and pursued by actors who have little interest in innovation (plaintiffs’ bar, and even the government), creating an environment where any/all innovation could be subject to a challenge. It is not enough to innovate—an innovator must be able to continually prove its merit.
Carol Xianxiao Liu, Associate
Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
- Changing Attitude Towards Innovation and Antitrust
- Nascent Competition
- Nascent Competition in Merger Enforcement
Liang Ding, Partner
10+ Years of Experience in Antitrust Litigation, Investigation, and Compliance
DeHeng Law Offices
- Overview of IP Antitrust Rules in China
- Draft Guidelines on Anti -monopoly in the Field of SEP