Digital Commons Network^™

The Case Of The Missing Device Patents, Or: Why Device Patents Matter, Erika Lietzan, Kristina M. L. Acri, Evan Weidner

Faculty Publications

A company that earns premarket approval of its medical device is entitled to an extension of one patent claiming the device, to make up for some of the time it spent doing premarket research. Yet, surprisingly, a mere thirteen percent of those eligible for this extension (also known as patent term "restoration") ask for one. In contrast, most drug companies entitled to this same patent extension ask for one.

In this Article, we attribute the imbalance largely to differences between the two regulatory frameworks. In brief, because the FDA classifies and regulates devices based on what they do and how …

Distorted Drug Patents, Erika Lietzan

Faculty Publications

Drug patents are distorted. Unlike most other inventors, drug inventors must complete years of testing to the government’s specifications and seek government approval to commercialize their inventions. All the while, the patent term runs. When a drug inventor finally launches a medicine that embodies the invention, only a fraction of the patent life remains. And yet, conventional wisdom holds — and empirical studies show — that patent life is essential to innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps more so than any other inventive industry. Congress tried to do something about this in 1984, authorizing the Patent and Trademark Office to …

Access Before Evidence And The Price Of The Fda's New Drug Authorities, Erika Lietzan

Faculty Publications

Sometimes drug innovation seems to happen in reverse. Patients enjoy a treatment for years even though the treatment has not been approved by the FDA or proven safe and effective to the FDA's standards. (Sometimes this happens because the FDA has declined to take enforcement action.) The agency encourages companies to perform the work necessary to satisfy the United States "gold standard" for new drug approval, however, by promising exclusivity in the marketplace. When a company does this work, at considerable expense, the results are predictable. The new drug is expensive, and patients and payers (and sometimes policymakers) are outraged. …

Paper Promises For Drug Innovation, Erika Lietzan

Faculty Publications

Innovation does not stop when a new medicine is launched. Development of new uses for already approved drugs, in particular, can make profound contributions to the public health. Whether a new use is suspected during the initial premarket trials, identified through focused research after approval, or discovered serendipitously by physicians treating patients, however, it requires extensive clinical testing before it can be approved by FDA. This testing takes time and money — three to five years on average, and as much as $300 million. This Article considers the incentives that federal law offers to companies to make this investment: patent …

A Solution In Search Of A Problem At The Biologics Frontier, Erika Lietzan

Faculty Publications

This short paper comments on Professor Carrier's new article, Biologics: The New Antitrust Frontier. His article makes a profound initial contribution to a new area of scholarship, based on a large body of prior work considering antitrust issues relating to small molecule drugs. But Professor Carrier’s article, like my own forthcoming piece on innovation and competition in the biologics marketplace, is inherently speculative. We are making our best judgments about the nature of a still emerging marketplace and likely conduct in that marketplace, based on our understandings of a new regulatory framework that is itself still emerging, the broader legal …

Collaborative Lawyers' Duties To Screen The Appropriateness Of Collaborative Law And Obtain Clients' Informed Consent To Use Collaborative Law, John M. Lande, Forrest Steven Mosten

Faculty Publications

Collaborative Law (CL) is an innovative dispute resolution process that offers significant benefits but also poses significant non-obvious risks. This Article provides a systematic analysis of these possible risks as identified in books written by CL experts, CL practice group websites, social science research, and bar association ethics opinions. In CL, the lawyers and clients sign a "participation agreement" promising to use an interest-based approach to negotiation and fully disclose all relevant information. A key element of CL is the "disqualification agreement" signed by parties (and sometimes by attorneys) which provides that both CL lawyers would be disqualified from representing …