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


« Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2015) | Main | STRONG Patents Act of 2015 -- An Alternative Patent Reform Bill »

March 03, 2015


...maybe time to invent a new R&D system.

Thanks for the information. It's sad that drugs are becoming harder and harder to introduce because of costs like this.

I have extremely tough time believing Tufts work as its content has been fed by the pharma companies. There is no independent verification of their numbers. Then on top of this study someone else comes along and endorses the numbers. This I call a self promotion and for vying business.

When companies are inefficient a the pharma companies are in their R&D, manufacturing, supply chain and every thing else they do, I would "show me" the number. Till that happens, I will call this telling us that swallow the numbers as the drug costs are going up.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2022

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