Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

The Uneasy Case For Patent Law, Rachel E. Sachs

Michigan Law Review

A central tenet of patent law scholarship holds that if any scientific field truly needs patents to stimulate progress, it is pharmaceuticals. Patents are thought to be critical in encouraging pharmaceutical companies to develop and commercialize new therapies, due to the high costs of researching diseases, developing treatments, and bringing drugs through the complex, expensive approval process. Scholars and policymakers often point to patent law’s apparent success in the pharmaceutical industry to justify broader calls for more expansive patent rights.

This Article challenges this conventional wisdom about the centrality of patents to drug development by presenting a case study of …

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 …

The Need For Adequate And Effective Protection Of Intellectual Property: Perspective Of The Private Sector - Patents, Peter C. Richardson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Role Of The Fda In Innovation Policy, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Article reexamines the role of FDA regulation in motivating investment in biopharmaceutical innovation. I begin by challenging the standard story that it is the patent system that makes drug development profitable, and drug regulation that makes it costly, by showing how patents add to costs and how drug regulation works in tandem with patents to protect profits. I then compare FDA-administered exclusive rights to patents as a means of fortifying drug development incentives, suggesting ways that FDA-administered rights might be preferable both from the perspective of policy makers and from the perspective of firms. In the remainder of the …

Supporting Innovation In Targeted Treatments: Licenses Of Right To Nih-Funded Research Tools, Tanuja V. Garde

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Support for new drug development has taken some interesting turns in current patent law jurisprudence. Beginning with the severe curtailment of scope of the common law experimental use doctrine in Madey v. Duke University, and culminating with the recent Supreme Court decision in Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., broadening the scope of the statutory research exemption, the freedom to conduct experimental research using another's patented inventions becomes dependent in part on the purpose of the research. That the patent at issue in Merck was characterized by the Federal Circuit as being directed to a research tool raised the …

The Experimental Purpose Doctrine And Biomedical Research, Tao Huang

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The experimental use doctrine is a common law rule in patent law that until a few years ago excused accused infringers who made and used patented products or processes on the basis of an experimental, educational, or nonprofit purpose when there was de minimis economic injury to the patent owner and de minimis economic gain to the infringer. While the application of the experimental purpose doctrine was always narrow, two recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that there is not much left under its aegis. In Madey v. Duke University, the Federal Circuit strictly limited the application of the experimental purpose …