Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
"Per Se Illegality For Reverse Payment Settlements?" Review Of "Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework For Presumptive Illegality, Daniel A. Crane
"Per Se Illegality For Reverse Payment Settlements?" Review Of "Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework For Presumptive Illegality, Daniel A. Crane
Reviews
Congratulations to Mike on a very fine book. I will confine my comments to Mike's chapter on patent settlements (Chapter 15), which I understand will also be coming out as an article in the Michigan Law Review. Patent settlements involving "reverse payments" are a huge topic on which I and many others have spilled much ink already. Representative Bobby Rush (President Obama's erstwhile nemesis from Chicago's South Side) has just introduced legislation that would ban reverse payments.' I will not regurgitate my entire spiel on patent settlements here, but instead just try to highlight my essential disagreement with Mike …
Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework For Presumptive Illegality, Michael A. Carrier
Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework For Presumptive Illegality, Michael A. Carrier
Michigan Law Review
A tidal wave of high drug prices has recently crashed across the U.S. economy. One of the primary culprits has been the increase in agreements by which brand-name drug manufacturers and generic firms have settled patent litigation. The framework for such agreements has been the Hatch-Waxman Act, which Congress enacted in 1984. One of the Act's goals was to provide incentives for generics to challenge brand-name patents. But brand firms have recently paid generics millions of dollars to drop their lawsuits and refrain from entering the market. These reverse-payment settlements threaten significant harm. Courts nonetheless have recently blessed them, explaining …
Intellectual Liability, Daniel A. Crane
Intellectual Liability, Daniel A. Crane
Articles
Intellectual property is increasingly a misnomer since the right to exclude is the defining characteristic of property and incentives to engage in inventive and creative activity are increasingly being granted in the form of liability rights (which allow the holder of the right to collect a royalty from users) rather than property rights (which allow the holder of the right to exclude others from using the invention or creation). Much of this recent reorientation in the direction of liability rules arises from a concern over holdout or monopoly power in intellectual property. The debate over whether liability rules or property …
Trolling For Trolls: The Pitfalls Of The Emerging Market Competition Requirement For Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases Post-Ebay, Benjamin H. Diessel
Trolling For Trolls: The Pitfalls Of The Emerging Market Competition Requirement For Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases Post-Ebay, Benjamin H. Diessel
Michigan Law Review
In eBay v. MercExchange, a unanimous Supreme Court announced that a new four-factor test should be employed by district courts in determining whether to award an injunction or damages to an aggrieved party whose intellectual property has been infringed. In the context of permanent injunctions in patent cases, district courts have distorted the four-factor test resulting in a "market competition requirement." Under the new market competition requirement, success at obtaining an injunction is contingent upon a party demonstrating that it is a market competitor After consistent application in the first twenty-five district court cases post-eBay, the market competition requirement …