E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« USPTO Solicits Public Comment on Information Collection | Main | Gates Foundation Seeks to Make This "The Decade of Vaccines" »

February 15, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20120a8a4b6fc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference FTC Disapproves of "Pay-for-Delay" Drug Deals:

Comments

Kevin,

This is unfortunately one time where I agree with the FTC. (Normally, I find the FTC obnoxious and ridiculous in what they go after in the patent arena.) But the practice the FTC is going after speaks volumes about the "mess" that Hatch-Waxman is.

Dear EG:

I'm thinking of doing a follow-up on the bases the CAFC and 2d Cir used in ruling that such arrangements are not per se illegal. Then I will be able to let you know whether I agree with you.

Thanks for the comment.

The government looking down upon corruption? WHAT? HOW CAN THIS BE? THINK OF THE JOBS THAT WOULD BE LOST IF WE GOT RID OF CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!!

Kinda cynical, 6. You work for the government - are you implying the Office is corrupt (be careful how you answer that question)?

I think you missed the point of my post Kev. It was to say that this pay for delay nonsense is corruption, and that it is the corporations doing it. That doesn't implicate the gov in corruption, so far as I can see. Furthermore I then implied that the government was looking down upon this kind of corruption. I then expressed mock surprise at the gov doing so since I don't have a good opinion of them cracking down on corruption well enough. Then I noted sarcastically that there would be horrible job loss if we were to get rid of corruption. Just think of how many people get put out of work when a mafia ring is busted! Thousands I'll bet! Entire communities devastated!

Though don't get me wrong, it is a proven fact that some of the government is corrupt. Wasn't a mayor of some big city just brought up on bribery a few years back? And some lady was funneling funds from the PTO to some pastor not a year ago. Look also to the recent extension of copyright terms. Corruption dear sir.

Don't even get me started on those senators that got busted a few years back. Dear jebus.

I have to say though that it is my experience that the PTO is remarkably corruption free in so far as those kinds of things go and as far as I can see.

Remember Kev, I don't work for the office, I'm a homeless guy on the side of I-95.

A better solution would be to revise the 180-day exclusivity forfeiture provisions. A generic company that settles should forfeit the exclusivity period and it should role over to the next ANDA filer.

Pay-for-delay agreements appear to constitute an abuse of the patent law system. I agree that it is a conundrum best addressed by Congress. However, I'm not certain on the constitutionality of an outright ban, unless the antitrust argument holds up.
http://www.GeneralPatent.com

Thanks as always for writing, Marilyn, but actually I DID mean the FDA, not the FTC. In order for a patent to be officially linked to a drug, so that the generic manufacturer has to take it into account, it must be listed in the FDA's "Orange Book." The FDA if it had the backbone could refuse to list a lot of the minor, subsidiary patents in their book right now and that would end a lot of the problem. The authors of the article I review suggest an administrative appeal, whereby a generic manufacturer could challenge a patent's listing in the Orange Book without having to go to court.

Randy Huggins
Pharmaspider.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30