Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

3d Printing And Healthcare: Will Laws, Lawyers, And Companies Stand In The Way Of Patient Care?, Evan R. Youngstrom

Evan R. Youngstrom

Today, our society is on a precipice of significant advancement in healthcare because 3D printing will usher in the next generation of medicine. The next generation will be driven by customization, which will allow doctors to replace limbs and individualize drugs. However, the next generation will be without large pharmaceutical companies and their justifications for strong intellectual property rights. However, the current patent system (which is underpinned by a social tradeoff made from property incentives) is not flexible enough to cope with 3D printing’s rapid development. Very soon, the social tradeoff will no longer benefit society, so it must be …

Holding Standards For Randsome: A Remedial Perspective On Rand Licensing Commitments, Layne S. Keele

Layne S. Keele

In Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the four federal judges who considered the case—Judge Posner by designation at the trial level, and three Federal Circuit judges on appeal—all expressed differing opinions on the question of whether and to what extent extraordinary patent remedies should be available for the infringement of standard-essential patents. This article aims to simplify this muddled and confusing topic.

The article employs a teleological approach, examining the purposes behind remedies in general, the purposes of extraordinary remedies in patent law, and the purposes of RAND commitments (commitments to license standard-essential …

Essential Facilities Doctrine And China’S Anti-Monopoly Law, Yong Huang, Elizabeth Xiao-Ru Wang, Xin Roger Zhang

Elizabeth Xiao-Ru Wang

No abstract provided.

The Evolution Of Intellectual Property Protections In The People’S Republic Of China: Is There An Enforcement Problem?, William Mcguire, Michael Wotherspoon

William McGuire

No abstract provided.

Waging War On Specialty Pharmaceutical Tiering In Pharmacy Benefit Design, Chad I. Brooker

Chad I Brooker

Specialty drugs represent a growing concern for both health insurance issuers and beneficiaries given their exceedingly high (and growing) costs—representing almost half of all drug spend by 2017. Payers have sought to reduce their specialty drug spend by sharing more of the cost of these drugs with the beneficiaries who depend on them through the creation of specialty drug tiers. This has forced some patients to choose between forgoing other needs to pay for their medications or not take them at all. While several states have sought to outlaw the use of specialty drug tiers or limit pharmaceutical OOP cost-sharing, …

Patent Trolls Among Us, Kent R. Acheson

Kent R Acheson

As Acheson (2012) suggested in A Study of the Need to Change United States Patent Policy, software should not be patented, but the Intellectual Property Rights should be protected in another manner that does not entail a Copyright, Trademark, or secrecy. A new form of protection should be created based on certain criteria, such as useful life of a patent, incremental innovation, value to society, and or value to life.

Rescuing Access To Patented Essential Medicines: Pharmaceutical Companies As Tortfeasors Under The Prevented Rescue Tort Theory, Richard Cameron Gower

Richard Cameron Gower

Despite some difficulties, state tort law can be argued to create a unique exception to patent law. Specifically, the prevented rescue doctrine suggests that charities and others can circumvent patents on certain critical medications when such actions are necessary to save individuals from death or serious harm. Although this Article finds that the prevented rescue tort doctrines is preempted by federal patent law, all hope is not lost. A federal substantive due process claim may be brought that uses the common law to demonstrate a fundamental right that has long been protected by our Nation’s legal traditions. Moreover, this Article …

Copyright Freeconomics, John M. Newman

John M. Newman

Innovation has wreaked creative destruction on traditional content platforms. During the decade following Napster’s rise and fall, industry organizations launched litigation campaigns to combat the dramatic downward pricing pressure created by the advent of zero-price, copyright-infringing content. These campaigns attracted a torrent of debate, still ongoing, among scholars and stakeholders—but this debate has missed the forest for the trees. Industry organizations have abandoned litigation efforts, and many copyright owners now compete directly with infringing products by offering licit content at a price of $0.

This sea change has ushered in an era of “copyright freeconomics.” Drawing on an emerging body …