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

« Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) | Main | Webinar on Conflicts Issues in Patent Prosecution »

June 27, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20192abb33486970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013):

Comments

Kevin, thanks for this report. If the innovator is still on the hook for state law tort claims under Wyeth, and generic manufacturers are now immunized from such claims, wouldn't it behoove consumers to insist on only getting the innovator's product? And if so, would they have any recourse against a health insurer who insists on covering only the generic version? Sounds like there might be a market for generic drug side-effect insurance.

Dear I'm:

Interesting thought - not sure how the Court would reconcile Wyeth with Mutual. The branded drugmaker has more latitude in changing the label and/or the compound/formulation but at what point do any changes make the drug fall outside the NDA? And, of course, the point of generic drugs is to make them more affordable (mostly for insurance companies and the government, of course). So I don't see people flocking to avoid generic drugs - the consequence of this ruling is that, absent express changes in state tort law generic companies are under less liability risk (which is troubling because it also removes disincentives for generics to cut corners).

And good luck collecting on generic side effect insurance, even if the premiums were something affordable. The economic analysis would need to be (total lower cost of drug) - (cost of insurance premium) > (insurance payoff amount) x (risk of side effect) x (risk of no payoff).

Seems to me (in view of the costs incurred here) that it would never be worth it.

Thanks for the comment.

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