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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO Proposes Changes to Streamline Reexamination Proceedings | Main | U.S. Trade Representative Releases Special 301 Report on Global IPR »

May 03, 2011


"Biotech and pharma patentees have a legitimate interest in keeping such information secret, but the nature of their businesses could easily be characterized as involving 'public health.'"

I do not see the problem - Yes, certain items can be characterized as involving "public health", but there is still a balancing of which of those items must meet the reason for putting them into the sunshine. If that blance tips in favor of disclosure, then the fact that certain companies would like to keep them secret is overcome by society's needs.

Som esecrets should not be kept, regardless of what the secret-keepers' desires are.

Dear Skeptical:

Perhaps. But it would be more certain if the bill either defined the types of "civil actions" to which it was intend to apply, or simply say "in civil actions for products liability." I think the certainty would help.

Thanks for the comment.

"provisions will be to put pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies at risk in any litigation. "

Dear jebus. Finally.

"Frequently, protective orders are entered in cases involving these companies to prevent disclosure of trade secrets,"

So long as the trade secrit isn't that your product kills people etc. then I think you should be fine under this bill.

"Biotech and pharma patentees have a legitimate interest in keeping such information secret, but the nature of their businesses could easily be characterized as involving "public health.""

So in other words, their business can be termed "public health" and they should be allowed to keep public health secrit.

Mhmmm, you'll forgive me if I'm not convinced.

"The bill also provides the opportunity for manipulation by litigants, insofar as the threat of litigation (and the disclosure mandated by the Federal Rules not trumped by the provisions of this proposed statute) could be used to obtain an advantage over patentee plaintiffs. "

And thank g od for that. It is almost as if we have miraculously somehow grown a government for the people by the people.

"This makes the bill particularly dangerous for biotech and pharma companies, since the multiple interests (especially the interest in lower drug costs regardless of the actual costs of developing such drugs) make the ultimate decision fraught with political consequences that overshadow the disputes and issues between private party litigants that might otherwise limit the extent of any public interest in disclosure of such private information."

Whew boy, things are getting juicy!

I'm glad we have such a glowing endorsement for the bill from an industry insider like yourself!

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2023

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