Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Update On Antitrust And Pay-For-Delay: Evaluating “No Authorized Generic” And “Exclusive License” Provisions In Hatch-Waxman Settlements, Saami Zain
San Diego Law Review
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the United States Supreme Court held that a patent litigation settlement where a branded drug company pays a generic drug company to end the litigation and delay launching its generic may violate the antitrust laws. Although the decision ended years of controversy over whether such settlements were subject to antitrust scrutiny, many issues remain unresolved concerning the lawfulness of these settlements. In particular, courts have struggled in assessing the legality of patent settlements between branded and generic drug manufacturers involving non-cash compensation or benefits. This article discusses one type of non-cash compensation that is …
Closing One Loophole And Opening Another: Why Section 271(F) Patent Infringement Should Apply To Method Patents After Cardiac Pacemakers, Michael Silhasek
Closing One Loophole And Opening Another: Why Section 271(F) Patent Infringement Should Apply To Method Patents After Cardiac Pacemakers, Michael Silhasek
San Diego Law Review
This Comment will address the applicability of § 271(f) to method patents compared with other patented inventions-machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Part II will briefly discuss the primary purpose of the infringement statute, which is to encourage inventive action by granting rights to a patent holder. Part III will discuss the history of § 271(f) and the section's applicability to process patents. The Federal Circuit questioned the section's applicability to method patents, then affirmed it, then questioned it again, and then, most recently, rejected it. Part IV will examine other foreign activity that could lead to domestic infringement. Part …