Generics still unable to resolve ANDA patent issues by declaratory judgment, but is a supreme court resolution on the way?
نویسنده
چکیده
The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Apotex v. Pfizer (S. Ct. 906-1006, October 16, 2006). The ruling was predictable. Pfizer had mooted the case by providing a covenant not to sue Apotex on its Quinapril patent. But the underlying legal issue – subject matter jurisdiction in declaratory judgment cases – is currently pending before the Supreme Court in Medimmunne v. Genentech (S. Ct. 05-608), which was argued on October 4, 2006.
منابع مشابه
رای اعلامی پیشگیرانه و حمایت از ناقضان بالقوه حق اختراع
Generally, one of the most important impediments before persons who wants One of the most important obstacles faced by those who intend to enter the inventions market is the concern about violation of others rights, which usually will result in severe sanctions in legal systems. In this situation, those Persons need a solution, which give them the opportunity, before start investment, to ask th...
متن کاملHow Can the Supreme Court Not “Understand” Patent Law?
The Supreme Court does understand patent law. This invited Essay responds to Federal Circuit Judge Dyk’s remarks at the Chicago-Kent Supreme Court IP Review, in particular, his observation that the patent “bar and the academy have expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court understands patent law well enough to make the governing rules” (a view Judge Dyk did not endorse). The idea that the Supr...
متن کاملA victory for global public health in the Indian Supreme Court.
On 1 April of this year, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Indian Patent Office to refuse the patent grant for Novartis imatinib mesylate (Gleevec). The patent application failed to meet the requirements for patentability under Indian law. The global public health community followed the case closely. Its outcome could affect the Indian generics industry - an important supplier...
متن کاملGrowing pains for the Medicare hospice benefit.
agreement and found it legal.5 The Third Circuit disagreed, arguing that these agreements should be presumed to be anticompetitive unless there was evidence that their purpose was not anticompetitive or that they had procompetitive effects.1 The court noted that Congress intended Hatch–Waxman to increase competition between brandname and generics manufacturers in order to lower drug prices for ...
متن کاملTeva v. Eisai: what's the real "controversy"?
The current system of regulating the multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry via market exclusivity comes from the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The statute creates the framework for controlling the entry of generic drugs by a notification and certification system that heavily relies on the "Approved Drug Products with T...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Health care law monthly
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2006