Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
Renovations Needed: The Fda's Floor/Ceiling Framework, Preemption, And The Opioid Epidemic, Michael R. Abrams
Renovations Needed: The Fda's Floor/Ceiling Framework, Preemption, And The Opioid Epidemic, Michael R. Abrams
Michigan Law Review
The FDA’s regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals uses a “floor/ceiling” model: administrative rules set a “floor” of minimum safety, while state tort liability sets a “ceiling” of maximum protection. This model emphasizes premarket scrutiny but largely relies on the state common law “ceiling” to police the postapproval drug market. As the Supreme Court increasingly holds state tort law preempted by federal administrative standards, the FDA’s framework becomes increasingly imbalanced. In the face of a historic prescription medication overdose crisis, the Opioid Epidemic, this imbalance allows the pharmaceutical industry to avoid internalizing the public health costs of their opioid products. This Note …
Pay-For-Delay Settlements In The Wake Of Actavis, Michael L. Fialkoff
Pay-For-Delay Settlements In The Wake Of Actavis, Michael L. Fialkoff
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
“Pay-for-delay” settlements, also known as reverse payments, arise when a generic manufacturer pursues FDA approval of a generic version of a brand-name drug. If a patent protects the brand-name drug, the generic manufacturer has the option of contesting the validity of the patent or arguing that its product does not infringe the patent covering the brand-name drug. If the generic manufacturer prevails on either of these claims, the FDA will approve its generic version for sale. Approval of a generic version of a brand-name drug reduces the profitability of the brand-name drug by forcing the brand-name manufacturer to price its …
Actavis, The Reverse Payment Fallacy, And The Continuing Need For Regulatory Solutions, Daniel A. Crane
Actavis, The Reverse Payment Fallacy, And The Continuing Need For Regulatory Solutions, Daniel A. Crane
Articles
The Actavis decision punted more than it decided. Although narrowing the range of possible outcomes by rejecting the legal rules at the extremes and opting for a rule of reason middle ground, the opinion failed to grapple with the most challenging issues of regulatory policy raised by pharmaceutical patent settlements. In particular, it failed to clearly delineate the social costs of permitting and disallowing patent settlements, avoided grappling with the crucial issues of patent validity and infringement, and erroneously focused on “reverse payments” as a distinctive antitrust problem when equally or more anticompetitive settlements can be crafted without reverse payments. …
Discarding The North Dakota Dictum: An Argument For Strict Scrutiny Of The Three-Tier Distribution System, Amy Murphy
Discarding The North Dakota Dictum: An Argument For Strict Scrutiny Of The Three-Tier Distribution System, Amy Murphy
Michigan Law Review
In Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court held that states must treat instate and out-of-state alcoholic beverages equally under the dormant Commerce Clause and established a heightened standard of review for state alcohol laws. Yet in dictum the Court acknowledged that the three-tier distribution system-a regime that imposes a physical presence requirement on alcoholic beverage wholesalers and retailers-was "unquestionably legitimate." Though the system's physical presence requirement should trigger strict scrutiny, lower courts have placed special emphasis on Granholm's dictum, refusing to subject the three-tier distribution system to Granholm's heightened standard of review. This Note argues that the dictum should be …
Teva V. Eisai: What's The Real Controversy, Grace Wang
Teva V. Eisai: What's The Real Controversy, Grace Wang
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
This Note examines the changing role of declaratory judgment actions in challenging patents upon generic entry and evaluates alternative regulatory schemes to the FDA's current system of patent enforcement in the drug approval setting. Part I reviews the Federal Circuit's recent decisions regarding generic drug entry, focusing on how the courts justify declaratory judgments in the current system and when a "controversy" exists to create Article III jurisdiction. Part II examines the complex system of regulating generic drug entry and how attempts to stop the exploitation of loopholes have resulted in a patchwork of regulation by various parties. It challenges …
Two Masters, Carl E. Schneider
Two Masters, Carl E. Schneider
Articles
American government rests on the principle of distrust of government. Not only is power within the federal government checked and balanced. Power is divided between the federal government and the state governments. So what if a state law conflicts with a federal law? The Constitution says that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the ... Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Sometimes the conflict between federal and state law is obvious and the Supremacy Clause is easily applied. But sometimes ...
Generic Preemption: Applying Conflict Preemption After Wyeth V. Levine, Hannah B. Murray
Generic Preemption: Applying Conflict Preemption After Wyeth V. Levine, Hannah B. Murray
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
If a generic manufacturer does not have control over its safety warnings, can it comply with the obligations posed by state tort liability? State failure-to-warn actions evaluate whether a product manufacturer has met its obligation to warn consumers about known dangers associated with its product. In essence, if a manufacturer knows about a potentially dangerous outcome, it has a duty to warn its consumers. If the generic manufacturer can comply with a state duty to warn only by changing a label that the FDA will not allow it to change, it becomes impossible for the corporation to meet both requirements. …
Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Articles
This Article considers the effect of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. on the nonobviousness standard for patentability as applied to pharmaceutical patents. By calling for an expansive and flexible analysis and disapproving of the use of rigid formulas in evaluating an invention for obviousness, KSR may appear to make it easier for generic competitors to challenge the validity of drug patents. But an examination of the Federal Circuit's nonobviousness jurisprudence in the context of such challenges reveals that the Federal Circuit has been employing all along the sort of flexible …
One Stop, No Stop, Two Stop, Terry Stop: Reasonable Suspicion And Pseudoephedrine Purchases By Suspected Methamphetamine Manufacturers, Andrew C. Goetz
One Stop, No Stop, Two Stop, Terry Stop: Reasonable Suspicion And Pseudoephedrine Purchases By Suspected Methamphetamine Manufacturers, Andrew C. Goetz
Michigan Law Review
This Note attempts to inject some clarity into courts' reasonable suspicion calculus for cold medicine purchases. It argues that the key factor in analyzing such purchases is whether the purchaser or purchasers appear to be circumventing pseudoephedrine purchasing restrictions in order to obtain inordinately large quantities of pseudoephedrine. Part I provides a general background on the domestic manufacture of methamphetamine in small, clandestine laboratories. Part II then examines the interplay between outward innocence and reasonable suspicion under the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Finally, Part III establishes a framework for identifying purchasing strategies that methamphetamine manufacturers commonly use to circumvent …
Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay V. Mercexchange On Innovation, Jeremiah S. Helm
Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay V. Mercexchange On Innovation, Jeremiah S. Helm
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Before the unanimous decision in eBay v. MercExchange, patent holders were almost always granted an injunction against an infringer. In fact, the Federal Circuit, in deciding eBay, noted that, upon a finding of infringement, an injunction would issue unless there were extraordinary circumstances. The Court, in a brief opinion, disagreed with the Federal Circuit and explained that the injunction issue in a patent case must be analyzed under the traditional four-factor test.[...] Is the four-factor test fairer or better than the Federal Circuit's near-automatic injunction rule? It is certainly more difficult to administer a factor test as compared to a …
Drugged, Carl E. Schneider
Drugged, Carl E. Schneider
Articles
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Oregon, like its decision last year in Gonzales v. Raich (the "medical marijuana" case), again raises questions about the bioethical consequences of the Controlled Substances Act. When, in 1970, Congress passed that act, it placed problematic drugs in one of five "schedules," and it authorized the U.S. attorney general to add or subtract drugs from the schedules. Drugs in schedule II have both a medical use and a high potential for abuse. Doctors may prescribe such drugs if they "obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the …
A Government Of Limited Powers, Carl E. Schneider
A Government Of Limited Powers, Carl E. Schneider
Articles
Roscoe C. Filburn owned a small farm in Ohio where he raised poultry, dairy cows, and a modest acreage of winter wheat. Some wheat he fed his animals, some he sold, and some he kept for his family's daily bread. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the wheat Mr. Filburn could grow without incurring penalties, but his 1941 crop exceeded those limits. Mr. Filburn sued. He said Claude Wickard, the Secretary of Agriculture, could not enforce the AAI's limits because Congress lacked authority to regulate wheat grown for one's own use. He reasoned: In our federal system, the states …
Border Patrol, Carl E. Schneider
Border Patrol, Carl E. Schneider
Articles
Recently, the Supreme Court has encountered cases that concern perhaps our weightiest bioethical issue-how medical care is to be rationed. But this does not mean that the Court must therefore assess the justice of rationing, as many people incited by many journalists now fondly and firmly believe. In explaining why, we begin with a story about how Learned Hand remembered saying one day to Justice Holmes, "Well, sir, goodbye. Do justice!" Holmes turned quite sharply and said: "That is not my job. My job is to play the game according to the rules." If the Court doesn't do justice, what …
Going To Pot, Carl E. Schneider
Going To Pot, Carl E. Schneider
Articles
In several earlier columns, I suggested that judges are usually poorly placed to make good biomedical policy, not least because the law so rarely offers them direct and cogent guidance. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proffered a new example of this old problem. In 1996, California's voters approved Proposition 215. Its "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" provided -that a patient "who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician" committed no crime.
International Aspects Of Prohibition Enforcement, Edwin D. Dickinson
International Aspects Of Prohibition Enforcement, Edwin D. Dickinson
Articles
The Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes." 40 Stat. io5O, 1941. In the National Prohibition Cases. 253 U. S. 350, 386, the amendment was said to be operative "throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States." As originally enacted, the National Prohibition Act did not in terms define its territorial field, but a supplemental provision afterwards enacted declares that the act "shall apply not only to …