Law Commons^™

Suggestions For State Laws On Biosimilar Substitution, Gary M. Fox

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Biologic drugs offer major advancements over small-molecule drugs when it comes to treating serious diseases. Biosimilars, which mimic innovative biologic drugs, have the potential to further revolutionize the practice of medicine. States now have decades of experience regulating the substitution of generic, small-molecule drugs for their brand-name equivalents. But the complexities of biologic drugs and biosimilars force states to confront novel scientific and legal issues. Many states have begun tackling those issues by passing laws that regulate when pharmacists may substitute biosimilars for their corresponding biologic drugs. Other states have yet to do so. This Note surveys five provisions common …

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 …

Scientific Trials--In The Laboratories, Not The Courts, Nicholas Bagley, Aaron E. Carroll, Pieter A. Cohen

Articles

In 2015, one of us published a peer-reviewed study, together with colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco, replicating prior research from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detecting a designer stimulant, β-methylphenylethylamine, in sports, weight loss, and “cognitive function” supplements sold in the United States. The confirmatory study prompted the FDA to take enforcement action against companies selling the stimulant as a dietary ingredient. One of the companies that received an FDA warning letter sued the study’s authors for $200 million in damages for libel, claiming, without supporting scientific evidence, that multiple statements in the article were …