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

« The Medicines Company Prevails in Patent Term Extension Dispute | Main | USPTO Acts Quickly to Comply with Court Order »

August 05, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20134860514b5970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pay-For-Delay Provision Added to Senate Appropriations Bill:

Comments

"the trade group [GPhA] said that it was "extremely disappointed that [] legislation that could ultimately ban patent settlements [] passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee," calling the addition of the pay-for-delay provision "a procedural façade with highly negative impact" and the Approproations Committee's passage of the provision "not the way the process should work.""

Don,

I concur completely with what this trade group said about how this provision was added. That provisions like these get attached to unrelated appropriations bills is one reason why the voters have an extremely low opinion of Congress. Whether or not you like this provision, it shouldn't be enacted in this matter. Put differently, the "end does not justify the means."

It was only a matter of time. We all knew pay-for-delay couldn't last much longer, especially with the FTC lobbying against it for so long. The good part is that it should result, collectively, in substantial savings to consumers.
http://www.aminn.org/webcast-aipr-patent-reform-presentation-us-patent-and-trademark-office

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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 31