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
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Court Report | Main | EMA Continues to Defer Approval of First Gene Therapy Application in Europe »

July 25, 2011

Comments

They should make it a criminal offense, just to weed out all those executives who have no ethical compass anymore.

Leahy supports this bill? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you. What's next, a patent "reform" bill that discourages innovation and games the patent system in favor of large, established players?

/sarcasm off/

So let me get this straight.

They introduce legislation that is to fight generics making an agreement to delay entry into the market.

The people supposedly "against" the bill argue: "but but but sometimes agreements don't delay entry into the market!"

Are the people supposedly against the bill [Redacted]? Or do they just not understand the bill? Or are they in pharma's back pocket?

This bill is a terrible idea. It's treating the symptom rather than the cause of the problem. The better solution is to revise Hatch-Waxman so that the first Paragraph IV ANDA filer's 180-day exclusivity period is forfeited if it enters into a reverse payment settlement. And even better would be to have the exclusivity period roll over to the next filer if there is such a settlement.

"The better solution is to revise Hatch-Waxman so that the first Paragraph IV ANDA filer's 180-day exclusivity period is forfeited if it enters into a reverse payment settlement. And even better would be to have the exclusivity period roll over to the next filer if there is such a settlement."

Lulz.

Since the feds seem pretty determined to do away with pay-for-delay settlement agreements in their current form, it seems rather futile to fight this apparently-inevitable trajectory. Instead, pharma companies should probably put their legal counsel to work on demonstrating how "the procompetitive benefits of the agreement[s] outweigh the anti-competitive effects."
http://www.generalpatent.com/blog/

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2019

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