Mr. Orszag, so much of the discussion today, including some of your discussion with Senator Klobuchar, has focused on th...
And it's for that very reason that the Supreme Court has tended, over the course of the last century, to lean more towar...
But to the extent that the existence of the patent and the existence of the current patent term as we have it set up, fa...
We don't want anti-competitive behavior in our marketplace.
In your testimony you note that we have a statutory directive that exists under current law that all patents are to be p...
By the way, when we're in the context of a patent, isn't there something sort of internally inconsistent or contradictor...
I think that encapsulates pretty well their approach, and I wish we had a little more time to discuss that but perhaps a...
Pharmaceutical patents are extremely valuable and it's for good reason that they're valuable.
Opponents of reverse settlements have for several years argued that they're anti-competitive.
Both this recoupment of investment and these profits are jeopardized by lawsuits that are filed by generics.
Proponents of the agreements have argued that the agreements can never properly be considered anti-competitive.
I agree with the holding of the Supreme Court.
But to assume that requires us to assume at the outset that the patent is, in fact, invalid.
On average, it takes 10 years and $1 billion to develop and gain FDA approval for a new drug.
I want to talk just a little bit about our use of the term 'pay for delay' today.
Wouldn't you have to concede that then in that circumstance you've got pro-competitive effects?
Some brand-name manufacturers have chosen to settle lawsuits filed by generics instead of litigating.
About 65 percent of my State is controlled by the Federal Government, they are Federal lands.
