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


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 | Global Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Technology Corp. (D. Nev. 2016) »

April 11, 2016

Comments

What these representatives fail to understand is that rarely, if ever, is a drug "developed" at a University. Government funding for basic research that leads to a commercial entity taking the reins for late-stage development, clinical trials, and marketing is usually a drop in the bucket in the context of the total cost bore by the licensee company. Low drug pricing in other countries mainly is due to government regulations and subsidies that allow for it. If these legislators really want to help the public, they should sponsor legislation for government subsidies. Since when does a 15% contribution to the cost of something entitle you to full ownership? Never. Yet this is what these legislators are purporting. Totally disingenuous.

Hey Don,

The continuing effort by certain members of Congress to improperly manipulate and coerce the NIH into exerting the "march-in-rights" provisions of Bayh-Dole as a means for drug price control.

More populist b.s. for an election year. The active ingredient may have first been synthesized at UCLA as part of a research program funded with US government money (along with many other compounds, no doubt), but UCLA didn't "develop" the drug, no university has ever developed a drug. When's the last time a government anywhere, as opposed to a private company, developed a drug?

And how much are Japan and Sweden subsidizing enzalutamide and/or capping its price? Or the prices of drugs generally?

Not surprisingly, of the 12 people (out of 535 members of Congress) signed on the letter, you've got the entire Vermont Congressional delegation and both Minnesota senators.

If they're tired of the USA subsidizing drug development for the rest of the world, there are ways to address that directly and across the board. Trying to use NIH march-in rights in a single case isn't going to solve their problem.

Merely a semi-serious musing...

Why bother with "'march-in" rights at all when one can attempt to use the "directed to" approach from the flavor of the day (101) to the legislated prohibition of "directed to" a human and find that all Pharma patents are void because they are "directed to" humans...

(This compare and contrast of what should be something narrowly applied - but not - in the judicial exception AND what should not be narrowly applied - and [currently] is - in the legislated writing; has not yet gained traction, but perhaps it "should," given the "logic" of how the "101 directed to" is being applied)

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2021

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