Tag: Technology

Drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) agreed to pay $2.1 million – the largest fine allowed by law – for failing to inform the FTC of agreements reached with Apotex, Inc., regarding potential generic competition to its blockbuster drug Plavix. BMS’s conduct violated a 2003 FTC Order and the Medicare Modernization Act, which requires that certain drug company agreements be accurately reported to both the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The complaint alleges that BMS failed to disclose that, as part of a patent settlement in which Apotex agreed not to launch its generic version of Plavix for several years, BMS also orally stated, among other things, that it would not compete with Apotex during the first 180 days after Apotex did market its new generic drug.

In November 2008, the Commission issued an administrative complaint charging that the acquisition of CCC Information Services by Mitchell International, a transaction valued at $1.4 billion, would be anticompetitive in the market for “estimatics”, a database system used by auto insurers and repair shops to generate repair estimates for consumers. According to the complaint, the transaction would also harm competition in the market for total loss valuation (TLV) systems, used to inform consumers when their vehicle has been totaled. The transaction would create a new entity with well over half of the market share for these systems, allowing for unilateral price increases, and facilitating coordination among the remaining smaller competitors in the market. The Commission concurrently authorized staff to file a complaint in Federal District Court. On March 9, 2009, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing the parties from consummating the transaction pending a full administrative trial on the merits. On March 13, 2009, since the respondents announced that they decided not to proceed with the proposed merger the Commssion dismissed the Administrative Complaint.

In November 2008, the Commission authorized staff to file a complaint in Federal District Court, charging that the acquisition of CCC Information Services by Mitchell International, a transaction valued at $1.4 billion, would be anticompetitive in the market for “estimatics”, a database system used by auto insurers and repair shops to generate repair estimates for consumers. According to the complaint, the transaction would also harm competition in the market for total loss valuation (TLV) systems, used to inform consumers when their vehicle has been totaled. The transaction would create a new entity with well over half of the market share for these systems, allowing for unilateral price increases, and facilitating coordination among the remaining smaller competitors in the market. The Commission concurrently issued an administrative complaint. On March 9, 2009, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing the parties from consummating the transaction pending a full administrative trial on the merits. On March 13, 2009, since the respondents announced that they decided not to proceed with the proposed merger the Commssion dismissed the Administrative Complaint.

There is a related administrative proceeding.

The Commission charged that Negotiated Data Solutions LLC (N-Data) violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by engaging in unfair methods of competition. N-Data acquired patent rights originally held by National Semiconductor Corp. which were included in an IEEE industry standard for autonegotiation technology, which allows Ethernet devices made by different manufacturers to work together. Ethernet is a computer networking standard that is used in nearly every computer sold in the U.S. N-Data reneged on National Semiconductor’s commitment to charge a one-time royalty of $1000 to manufacturers or sellers of products using the IEEE standard, and demanded higher royalties from users. In a consent agreement resolving the charges, N-Data must stop enforcing the patents at issue unless N-Data has first offered a license under the original terms.