Transparency is a Misplaced Regulatory Focus for Holding Adaptive Software as Medical Devices (SaMDs) Accountable
Quy Mai Adaptive Software as Medical Devices (SaMDs) play an increasingly critical role within clinical settings, assisting physicians with illness detection, diagnosis, and analysis. Use of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) techniques, such as deep machine learning and neural networks, lends adaptive SaMDs unparalleled analytical power, but not without risks. Adaptive SaMDs are typically “black-box,” meaning that they compute data such that no one can determine how it rendered outputs. “Transparency,” in the form of explainability, is frequently raised in policy discussions as a solution to track when the SaMD has erred in computing outputs. The FDA, in seeking to uphold...
Can a Two-Pronged Attack from Congress and the FDA Make Up for the BPCIA’s Limitations?
Guodong Fu The Biologic Product Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2009, modeled after the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, has been largely criticized as ineffective in promoting significant competition in the pharmaceutical industry. Biosimilar sponsors lack guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on how to obtain interchangeable designation for follow-on biologics. In addition, biosimilar sponsors face patent infringement litigation from reference drug companies as part of the “patent dance” set forth by the Supreme Court in 2017 in Sandoz v. Amgen. The FDA’s Biosimilar Action Plan (BAP) and a proposed bill from Congress, the Biologic Patent Transparency...
Get Out of My Head: An Examination of Potential Brain-Computer Interface Data Privacy Concerns
Kevin Y. Li Brain-computer interfaces (“BCI”), which interpret brain impulses and translate them into real world outputs, currently exist in a variety of forms. With the continued development of BCIs and their increasing complexity, privacy issues will arise in regards to the data that they collect. Existing federal statutes, such as HIPAA, as well as state data privacy statutes offer some protection to BCI users, but it remains to be seen whether these laws will be sufficient to accommodate the amount and sensitivity of the data likely to be generated by future BCIs. Lastly, this article explores the possibility of...
The Patent Utility Requirement and Its Impact on Alternative Medical Treatments for Lyme Disease
Sarah Murphy Alternative medicine has made its way to the forefront of medical innovation, changing the way both doctors and patients approach complex health issues. Patenting medical inventions promotes advancement by increasing the exchange of vital information. This crucial benefit to society is particularly important for patients suffering from chronic illnesses who are dissatisfied with conventional medicine. Though the patent system requires that patented inventions are “useful,” there is no guarantee that the product is effective or even safe to use. The medical field must grapple with this trade-off between the benefit of new treatments made easily available to people...
Data Exclusivity for Biologic Drugs: The TPP’s Potential Poison Pill?
Tina Cheung On October 5, 2015, after many years of secretive negotiations, the US government with 11 other countries across the Asia Pacific and Latin America reached an agreement on the largest free-trade deal in history, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Addressing everything from wildlife conservation and tax reductions for agriculture, to the free flow of information on the Internet and intellectual-property rights for movies and pharmaceutical drugs, this far-reaching agreement has the potential to impact up to one-third of world trade. One of the most contentious parts of the agreement involves intellectual property rights of pharma companies to data exclusivity...
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...