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


  • "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


« News from Abroad -- EPO Lifts Stays of Proceedings Following Implementation of New Plant Patent-Eligibility Rules | Main | PTAB Life Sciences Report »

July 11, 2017


This is a very useful and informative summary, Dr. Noonan. Thank you for sharing it.

In a related note, Robin Feldman was recently interviewed on the podcast Econtalk (URL below) about her new book on the generic drug industry. She offers some interesting insights on the effect of the Actavis decision. I do not agree with everything that Prof. Feldman has to say, but it was an interesting discussion, so I mention it for the benefit of those who had not heard it, but who are interested in the topic.


Dear Greg: Thanks for this. I have heard Prof. Feldman speak, and read some of her Congressional testimony. I admit to having been disappointed; while I understand most academics have a bias (one way or the other), I find her assessment of the pharma industry (branded or generic) to be inconsistent with reality.

Thanks for the comment

"I find her assessment of the pharma industry (branded or generic) to be inconsistent with reality."

Hey Kevin,

Of course Feldman's assessment is "inconsistent with reality." Feldman particularly has no clue what reality is, and that's because she's go an agenda "ax to grind." What is truly unfortunate is she's now indoctrinating untold scores of law students with the same misguided and unrealistic assessment-it'll take decades to undo the damage she and other law academics of the same ilk have caused.

At the beginning of the post, you proposed answering "the broader question of whether generic drug products are entering the marketplace earlier that they would have without the Court's intervention."

So, are generics actually getting to market faster now? Reverse payment settlements are down post-Actavis, but that doesn't answer the question of whether generics are actually hitting the market more quickly.

Dear Matthew:

On the evidence of these decisions I would say no, but don't have statistical evidence to support my belief.

One thing that is happening: "reverse payments," i.e. monies going from the branded drug maker to the generic challenger is in the form of "avoided litigation costs" (approved under the Actavis decision), with magistrate judges (who generally manage settlement negotiations for district courts) vetting whether the amounts are reasonable. This has certainly reduced the amounts that were prevalent 10 or so years ago, but as the cases show parties are also trading other exclusivities to get to an agreement.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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