Case Study: Patent Games: Plavix
Columbia Southern University DBA 7035, Business, Government and Society 28 October 2013 Dr. William Reed

Abstract
This case study will identify the conflicts between patent protection and preserving a competitive pharmaceutical market. Some pharmaceutical companies form monopolies and maximize their profit while shutting out the competitors. Patent holders are granted the right to produce, use, and sell the patented innovation for a certain time frame. As the inventor, having the exclusive rights encourages longevity of time and investment into new discoveries. “Patents are the driving force in the pharmaceutical industry, providing strong incentives for research, development, and testing of new chemical entities,” (Baron, 2010, p. 381). Some competitors feel like this is unfair to consumers and fight to be able to put their product on the market. Big pharmaceutical companies try to delay or not have competitors’ products released on the market by using the legal system t fought them in court. In the case study of Patent Games: Plavix it seems Bristol-Myers Squibb may have received some of their own medicine.

Case Study: Patent Game: Plavix Why did Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis seek a settlement rather than let the patent infringement case go to trial?
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis decided to seek a settlement rather than let the patent infringement case go to trial because Apotex voiced that they it expected immediate approval by the FDA. Bristol-Myers also knew that the FTC had opposed the arrangement between Bristol-Myers Squibb and Apotex that restricted the generic drugs from being placed on the market. “Under the consent decree the FTC and the state attorneys general had to approve any Bristol-Myers Squibb arrangements that could be