The Daraprim and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Paradox: A Broken System?
Franklin Liu In a recent study by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the average prices for brand-name prescription drugs were found to have increased by an average of 13 percent in 2013, compared to the inflation rate the year of just 1.5 percent. The Daraprim and Cycloserine cases, while extreme illustrations, depict a broader trend of increasing U.S. drug and health care costs to patients. The two manufacturers’ pricing decisions illustrate a longstanding tension in the pharmaceutical industry between the need for firms to recoup the high costs associated with bringing drugs to market and keeping drugs affordable...
Dosage Patenting in Personalized Medicine
Jerry I-H Hsiao, PhD; Wei-Lin Wang, JSD Inventions for dosage regimens often arise after the pharmaceutical product has been dosed in patients and more information is known about the in vivo and pharmacokinetic properties of the medical agent. However, securing patent protection for this type of invention has been difficult because dosage inventions are considered to be simple medical methods whose protection is believed to limit doctors’ choices in clinical practice. Moreover, novel dosage inventions are also considered to involve a process that does not enjoy the same scope of patent protection as new chemical entities despite their superior therapeutic...
Proveris v. Innovasystems: Redefining a Patented Invention Under § 271(E)(1): An Examination of the Federal Circuit’s Narrowing of the § 271(e)(1) “Safe Harbor” Exemption
Duane C. Marks By reducing the scope of “patented inventions” within § 271(e)(1) to only inventions comporting with the “perfect product fit” analysis, Proveris has drastically altered the function of § 271(e)(1) and potentially impairs the ability of generic manufactures to fully utilize the ANDA process created in Title I of the Act. Adherence to Proveris’ “perfect product fit” rule risks establishing loopholes that potentially allows patent holders of pioneer drugs and medical devices to delay generic manufacturers from bringing less expensive generics to the market. This Note critiques the Federal Circuit’s recent narrowing of § 271(e)(1) in Proveris. Part...
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act: Innovation Must Come Before Price Competition
Robert N. Sahr In an effort to reduce the costs of medicine for patients, Congress must be especially careful not to impair the ability of the biotechnology industry to thrive by substantially diminishing profitability. Currently, the biotechnology industry is “still relatively nascent” and is largely fueled by venture capital investment. Of the approximately 1400 biotechnology companies operating in the United States today, only twenty are profitable. Many of these companies are small, with revenues of under a million dollars per year, and do not even have a product on the market yet. Leaders in the biotechnology industry have expressed concern...
Was the FDA Exemption to Patent Infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), Intended to Exempt a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer’s Activities in the Development of New Drugs?
Paul Wiegel Esq. The FDA exemption was not created to assist in the generation of new drug candidates, which are included in the broad interpretation of the “reasonably related” language by the Supreme Court in Merck. Applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation to the facts of Merck means that a pharmaceutical manufacturer may use the patented products and methods of another manufacturer to identify new drug candidates and not infringe. In fact there is almost no limit to what can be considered “reasonably related” to the development of information for submission to the FDA since a great deal of the research...