Ted Hassi of O'Melveny & Myers LLP to Speak at KG’s Product-Hopping Event

NEW YORK - Aug. 19, 2015 - PRLog -- The Knowledge Group/The Knowledge Congress Live Webcast Series, the leading producer of regulatory focused webcasts, has announced today that Ted Hassi, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP will speak at the Knowledge Group’s webcast entitled: “Product-Hopping in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Antitrust Issues to Watch For in 2015 LIVE Webcast.” This event is scheduled for September 2, 2015 from 12:00pm –2:00pm (ET).

For further details, please visit:

http://theknowledgegroup.org/event_name/product-hopping-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry-antitrust-issues-to-watch-for-in-2015-live-webcast/

About Ted Hassi

Ted Hassi is a member of O’Melveny & Myers’ Antitrust Group in Washington DC where he represents parties in merger clearance and government investigations work, including FTC pharmaceutical reverse settlement and life-cycle management cases.  Ted recently rejoined O’Melveny following 3 1/2 years as the Federal Trade Commission’s Chief Trial Counsel.  At the FTC, Ted was responsible for leading the FTC’s litigation efforts relating to mergers and anticompetitive practices.  Ted assisted the Commissioners in evaluating whether or not to bring litigation, and when the FTC opted to sue, Ted led the agency’s litigation teams in court.  Ted was involved in the Commission’s reverse payment cases, including the Cephalon case, as well as evaluating possible challenges to various pharmaceutical life-cycle management practices and REMS restrictions.  Ted led the FTC’s challenges to the Ardagh/St. Gobain, Josten’s/Balfour, Ominicare/Pharmerica and IDT/PLX mergers.  Ted also successfully tried a monopolization case, In re McWane, on behalf of the Commission.  Before joining the FTC, Ted was a partner in O’Melveny’s New York office.  He is a graduate of Fordham Law and  earned his B.S. degree in Computer Science at the U.S. Naval Academy.  Before becoming a lawyer, Ted served 8 years as a pilot in the U.S. Navy.

About O'Melveny & Myers LLP

With approximately 700 lawyers in 15 offices worldwide, O’Melveny & Myers LLP helps industry leaders across a broad array of sectors manage the complex challenges of succeeding in the global economy. We are a values-driven law firm, guided by the principles of excellence, leadership, and citizenship. Our commitment to these values is reflected in our dedication to improving access to justice through pro bono work and championing initiatives that increase the diversity of the legal profession. For more information, please visit www.omm.com.

Event Synopsis:

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Hatch-Waxman Act) and other patent laws help pharmaceutical companies retain and extend patents for branded drugs that take decades and vast amounts of money to develop. However, the same Act promotes price competition by allowing generic drug manufacturers to obtain expedited approval for generic versions of previously approved branded drugs by using an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) that may reply upon clinical trial and other costly data produced by branded drug companies.

Branded drug companies naturally want patent exclusivity to last as long as possible. However, extending a period of market dominance without patent or regulatory protection is tantamount to antitrust. To avoid this issue, a recent practice of the branded drug companies is ‘Product Hopping’ or ‘Product Switching’

In this process, the form of drug dispersal is changed (e.g., tablet to a capsule) or the dosage is altered to prevent a generic company from relying on the streamlined ANDA based on the branded manufacturer’s submissions. To make it more difficult, the new drug is patented. Generic drug companies claim such changes prevent their market entry by manipulating the FDA approval process.

In the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Abbott and a partner twice changed the previously approved formulation for a drug; thereby delaying generic approval. Complaints alleged that Abbott and co-conspirators violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Citing Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak (1979), a Delaware ruled that even though the innovation harmed competitors, it didn’t decrease competition and therefore did not violate the antitrust laws denied their motion to dismiss.

The antitrust implications of product-hopping remain far from clear. A product-hopping claim may survive motion to dismiss if it alleges wrongful action and changing the form of the branded drug.

In this two-hour LIVE webcast, a panel of distinguished professionals and thought leaders assembled by The Knowledge Congress will review and discuss the possible Antitrust Implications of Product-Hopping in the Pharmaceutical industry.

In a two-hour LIVE Webcast, the speakers will discuss:

·         Product-Hopping – An Overview

·         Possible Antitrust Issues and Implications

·         Antitrust Cases:

o   Abbott Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

o   Walgreen v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

o   Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. Warner Chilcott

o   Namenda case in the Second Circuit

·         FTC’s Amicus Brief in 2012

·         Potential Risks and Antitrust Violations

·         Up-to-the-minute Regulatory Updates

About The Knowledge Group, LLC/The Knowledge Congress Live Webcast Series

The Knowledge Group, LLC was established with the mission to produce unbiased, objective, and educational live webinars that examine industry trends and regulatory changes from a variety of different perspectives. The goal is to deliver a unique multilevel analysis of an important issue affecting business in a highly focused format. To contact or register to an event, please visit: http://theknowledgegroup.org/