Not So Fast
Supporters of the scope-of-the-patent test assert that it promotes the judicial policy of favoring settlements. Opponents argue that it goes too far. “As…
September 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM
3 minute read
Supporters of the scope-of-the-patent test assert that it promotes the judicial policy of favoring settlements. Opponents argue that it goes too far. “As important as settlement is, too-early settlement deprives the public of the benefit of weeding out bad patents,” says Carole Handler, a partner at Lathrop & Gage.
One of the main goals of the Hatch-Waxman Act—the federal statute that regulates the sale of drugs—is to foster competition by encouraging makers of generic drugs to challenge the validity of drug patents. “That was a central part of the Hatch-Waxman Act,” says Prof. Michael Carrier of Rutgers School of Law. “The drafters of Hatch-Waxman really wanted to encourage challenges to invalid patents.”
By allowing patentees to buy off challenges to the validity of their patents, the scope-of-the-patent test conflicts with a crucial part of Hatch-Waxman, according to many experts. The 3rd Circuit agreed, stating in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation that the scope-of-the-patent test “is contrary to the policies underlying the Hatch-Waxman Act.”
Supporters of the scope-of-the-patent test assert that it promotes the judicial policy of favoring settlements. Opponents argue that it goes too far. “As important as settlement is, too-early settlement deprives the public of the benefit of weeding out bad patents,” says Carole Handler, a partner at
One of the main goals of the Hatch-Waxman Act—the federal statute that regulates the sale of drugs—is to foster competition by encouraging makers of generic drugs to challenge the validity of drug patents. “That was a central part of the Hatch-Waxman Act,” says Prof. Michael Carrier of Rutgers School of Law. “The drafters of Hatch-Waxman really wanted to encourage challenges to invalid patents.”
By allowing patentees to buy off challenges to the validity of their patents, the scope-of-the-patent test conflicts with a crucial part of Hatch-Waxman, according to many experts. The 3rd Circuit agreed, stating in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation that the scope-of-the-patent test “is contrary to the policies underlying the Hatch-Waxman Act.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Midsize Texas Firm Kane Russell Takes Another Step Toward Second-Generation Leadership With New CFO
- 2Governor's Chief Legal Counsel Is Newest Magistrate in Chancery
- 3JPMorgan, Tesla Call Off $162M Stock Warrant Case
- 4FDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
- 5Ex-CEO Michael Jeffries Sues Abercrombie, Claiming Company Must Cover Legal Fees in Sex Trafficking Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250