Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative proceedings (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Competition (1)
- Congress (1)
- Corporations (1)
-
- Crimes (1)
- Drug trafficking (1)
- Exclusivity (1)
- Exclusivity parking (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Forfeiture (1)
- Generic drugs (1)
- Hatch-Waxman Act (1)
- Incentives (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Legislative intent (1)
- Marijuana (1)
- Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (1)
- Patent challenges (1)
- Patent law (1)
- Personal use evidence (1)
- Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Research and development (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
An Administrative Meter Maid: Using Inter Partes Review And Post-Grant Review To Curb Exclusivity Parking Via The "Failure To Market" Provision Of The Hatch-Waxman Act, Brian T. Apel
Michigan Law Review
Congress created the unique Hatch-Waxman framework in 1984 to increase the availability of low-cost generic drugs while preserving patent incentives for new drug development. The Hatch-Waxman Act rewards generic drug companies that successfully challenge a pharmaceutical patent: 180 days of market exclusivity before any other generic firm can enter the market. When a generic firm obtains this reward, sometimes drug developers agree to pay generic firms to delay entering the market. These pay-for-delay agreements give rise to exclusivity parking and run counter to congressional intent by delaying full generic drug competition. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act created …
Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer
Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer
Michigan Law Review
Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …