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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« In re Stepan Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2017) -- Part II »

October 10, 2017

Comments

To the comment of "This situation is due in part to strong governmental price controls present in other developed nations, and the steep discounts, patent exceptions and donations granted in developing countries."

My reply: While indeed there is a humanitarian aspect involved in that developing countries may not be able to afford the price of a product (all else being equal), I am firmly against the US artificially subsidizing those self-same developing countries at my personal expense. Let ME decide how and when to be altruistic. Mechanisms (of any flavor) put in place in the "name of" (or playing on the theme of) "but these poor countries would not otherwise obtain the drugs" do not hold water with me.

A further thought is prompted by the comment of:

"Should such legislation pass, the Lexmark decision could prove critical, as it removes patent law as a means to exclude such drug imports."

I am not sure that this is phrased properly. Given that the proper application of exhaustion doctrine ALREADY removes patent law from the ability to "double dip." By double dip, I mean that it is entirely within the control of the seller to whom and for what price to sell. Even in price controlled markets, as (as far as I know), there is no one holding a gun to the head of the seller and forcing them to BE in such markets.

Their choices of markets to engage should not be accompanied with making "developing country" type of altruism a non-choice for me with me as a US citizen forced into higher prices to supplement those lower margin country sales.

Perhaps this is just a round about way of saying that the Lexmark exhaustion case was correct for the principles it maintained.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

October 2017

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