New Analysis Group Article Continues Debate over 'Stock-Price Approach' to Assessing Reverse-Payment Settlements

August 30, 2016

Analysis Group (AG) Managing Principals Pierre Cremieux and Paul Greenberg and Vice Presidents Ted Davis and Mark Lewis have published a Law360 article in which they continue a debate over whether stock price increases can serve as a proxy for the traditional rule of reason analysis required by the Supreme Court's Actavis decision in establishing whether a particular reverse-payment settlement is anti-competitive.

The debate began with a July 19 Law360 article, in which Dr. Cremieux, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Davis, and Dr. Lewis took issue with an Iowa Law Review article's assertion that an increase in a patent-holder's stock price following announcement of a settlement can be a “smoking gun” in establishing anti-competitive effects of that settlement. The authors of that approach responded with a vigorous objection to the Analysis Group critique in a follow-up Law360 article on July 29.

This rejoinder, “Pay-For-Delay & Stock Prices: Smoking Gun or Damp Squib?” thoroughly explains the flaws in the "smoking gun" advocates' contention that the AG authors' argument is “incorrect in theory, empirically and legally.” In the article, the AG authors provide additional context to support their unwavering position that observing a price increase after a settlement is an inappropriate proxy for anti-competitive concern.

Read the Iowa Law Review article
Read the July 19 AG article
Read the July 29 article response
Read the August 24 AG article