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

« Obama Administration Supports S. 23 | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

March 10, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2014e5fc8153e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fabry Patients Sue Genyzme for Damages Caused By Fabrazyme Rationing:

Comments

Interesting. From a European perspective, it is also interesting that the exclusive licensor to Genzyme of the "Fabrazyme patents", i.e. Mount Sinai, has started litigation to bar sales of the alternative product Replagal (by Shire, developed by then-TKT) in Germany. Replagal, of course, is approved in the EU but not in the US. So, all in all, Mount Sinai and Genzyme are attempting to stop sales of the only drug that patients are able to get their hands on, while not being able to supply their own.

Please, pass me the barf bag. I don't even know where to begin with how much the plaintiffs' suit reeks. If this is the way they want to play, then Genzyme's proper response to hold an auction: there's a shortage (which I seriously doubt Genzyme is interested in perpetuating), so the one who's willing to pay the most for it deserves it. Economics 101.

Please let us know when this suit gets tossed out on its ear.

If misuse is indeed found, does that nullify the patent?

" Even though Fabrazyme® is covered by a patent, taxpayer dollars paid for it under the Bayh-Dole act (35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq.)."

Wait a minute. What precisely were they trying to get the gov. to march in on just awhile back if not a patent?

"Please let us know when this suit gets tossed out on its ear."

Lulz, idk about that one bucko. Looks to me like they probably did everything alleged. Whether or not it is agin the lawl is another matter of course, but the lawl appears fairly lulzy on this issue so the corp may have a bit of an issue.

So why are only six patients named in the suit. I do not remember ever being asked if I wanted to join in. I think it's all BS lawyers want to get rich by standing on the backs of the sick pretending to look out for them. Toss the case!

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