Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law

Cleveland State University

Journal of Law and Health

Intellectual property

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Effect Of Lilly V. Medtronics On The Scope Of 35 Usc 271(E)(1): The Patent Infringement Exemption - Broad Or Narrow, Ajay S. Pathak Jan 1992

The Effect Of Lilly V. Medtronics On The Scope Of 35 Usc 271(E)(1): The Patent Infringement Exemption - Broad Or Narrow, Ajay S. Pathak

Journal of Law and Health

This article undertakes to examine, critically, the case history, legislative history, and the construction of sections 101, 201, and 202 of the Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 in an effort to analyze the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lilly v. Medtronics and to discern how the scope of section 271(e)(1) is likely to be treated in future cases in light of that recent Supreme Court decision.


The Patentability And Patent Term Extension Of Lifesaving Drugs: A Deadly Mistake, Jonathan L. Mezrich Jan 1992

The Patentability And Patent Term Extension Of Lifesaving Drugs: A Deadly Mistake, Jonathan L. Mezrich

Journal of Law and Health

The pharmaceutical business is dominated largely by two types of entities: large, research-intensive corporations, and the smaller "generic" drug "knock-off" artists. because the former organizations have to put so much of their budget into research and development (R&D), a form of investment which is often akin to pouring money into a hole, the 17-year exclusive monopoly of a patient is often the only way such a company can remain profitable. However, because of a concern for public safety, all substances prepared for human consumption must be put through extensive testing by the FDA. This testing could take a long period …


What Has Happened Since Chakrabarty, Jane M. Marciniszyn Jan 1988

What Has Happened Since Chakrabarty, Jane M. Marciniszyn

Journal of Law and Health

It is conventional wisdom that the patent system is designed to undergrid the investment in pushing technology forward. The patent system is innovation-oriented. And (sic) it functions most effectively in the expensive, breakthrough technologies, where uncertainties of success or payback abound. If, in assessing the risk of commitment, the penalties of failure outweigh the prizes of success, the prudent money will go elsewhere. The patent system moves the equation to the right, not by better assuring success (for only public needs and market values can do that), but by aiding success through offering the innovator a temporary respite from non-innovative …