Summary: The Case Of Abbott Laboratories V. Portland Retail Druggists 1979

In the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, the respondent brought an antitrust action against Abbott Laboratories claiming that they had violated the Robinson-Patman Act. The pharmaceutical manufacturers had sold drugs to not-for-profit hospitals at lower prices then to the commercial pharmacies (Showalter, pg 452). The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which was an amendment to the Clayton Antitrust Act (Elfand, n.d.), had made it unlawful to discriminate by placing a pricing difference between buyers of similar goods, when “the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). As the petitioners, Abbott Laboratories claimed that the price

The Court of Appeals “vacated and remanded” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). They agreed with the District Court in that the hospitals were indeed nonprofit, but the Court of Appeals decided that the hospital’s drugs are “purchased for its own use only where the hospital can be said to be the consumer, i.e., where dispensations are to inpatients and emergency facility patients” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists,

Even the respondent agreed with the Court of Appeals when they said that it doesn’t matter whether the patient is an inpatient or outpatient or whether the patient is occupying a bed, the hospital is still using the drugs for their own use (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). When an inpatient or outpatient has a take-home prescription, the Supreme Court ruled that the hospital is using the drugs for its own use. This is because the take-home prescription is only used for a limited and appropriate amount of time, and that continuation of care is not unreasonable (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists,