Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
A Prescription For Biopharmaceutical Patents: A Cure For Inter Partes Review Ailments, Alex A. Jurisch
A Prescription For Biopharmaceutical Patents: A Cure For Inter Partes Review Ailments, Alex A. Jurisch
Seattle University Law Review
The patent system in the United States was forever changed with the introduction of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in September of 2011. The AIA brought sweeping changes to American patent law in order to align the U.S. with much of the rest of the world by changing the invention priority from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system. The first section of this note will provide a brief overview of the substance of inter partes reviews and some of the most critical negatives that have become apparent since 2013. The second section of this Note …
Inevitable Imbalance: Why Ftc V. Actavis Was Inadequate To Solve The Reverse Payment Settlement Problem And Proposing A New Amendment To The Hatch-Waxman Act, Rachel A. Lewis
Seattle University Law Review
The law regarding reverse payment settlements is anything but settled. Reverse payment settlements are settlements that occur during a patent infringement litigation in which a pharmaceutical patent holder pays a generic drug producer to not infringe on the pharmaceutical patent. Despite the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., there are still unanswered questions about how the “full rule of reason” analysis will be applied to reverse payment. This Comment argues that despite the outcome in Actavis, the complex regulatory framework of the Hatch–Waxman Act will create repeated conflicts between antitrust law and patent …
Antitrust Issues In The Settlement Of Patent Disputes, Part Iii, Thomas B. Leary
Antitrust Issues In The Settlement Of Patent Disputes, Part Iii, Thomas B. Leary
Seattle University Law Review
Once again, I will address the issue of litigation settlements between companies that hold patents on pharmaceutical products (sometimes "pioneers") and would-be generic entrants ("generics") who challenge the validity of the patent and/or a claim of infringement. This discussion will focus on the Tamoxifen opinion, with passing reference to other decisions. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree on these issues, but I still believe the Commission's approach in Schering was correct.