Author: Papers

[Michael Risch] Abstract: Beginning in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the type of inventions that were patentable. In the aftermath of these limits, patent plaintiffs began to lose cases—especially software patent cases—in a way they had not before. Commentators predicted that, faced with waning patent protection, inventors would look to trade secrecy to protect their creations. This chapter is the first to empirically test this prediction.

[Robin Feldman] Abstract: It is axiomatic that patents promote success. And yet, a contrary notion—that the patent incentive for medicine should be sufficient to compensate for the losses incurred when research fails—is quietly permeating modern court decisions, commentary, and Congressional discussions, coloring debates relating to pricing and regulation of medicine. The conceptualization is moving forward unchallenged, as if failure compensation follows logically from the innovation incentives built into the patent construct. As this article demonstrates, however, the notion is antithetical to patent law, putting modern conceptualizations on a collision course with the history and theory of patents reaching back to this nation’s inception.

[Aaron Poynton] Abstract: This working paper critically examines the pharmaceutical industry and the incentive argument in patent law. It begins by framing an overview of the industry and patent law, focusing on U.S. and U.K. law, and multilateral agreements, and efforts by international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Next, the paper considers patent incentive arguments on both sides of the issue to provide a well-researched and more balanced perspective. It then views the longstanding debate through the lenses of contemporary issues related to Covid-19 vaccines and the recent patent waivers considered by many countries. Lastly, this paper provides concluding opinions supporting the argument that intellectual property protection is core to innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, but patent waivers may be a necessary tool in certain situations. It concludes by recommending fixing the TRIPS compulsory licensing provision flaws and carefully finding a TRIPS waiver solution that could strike the desired balance between protecting intellectual property (IP) and providing for the common good.

[Katarina Foss-Solbrekk] Abstract: Despite being used frequently by practitioners in a wide array of technical fields, divisional patent applications (“divisionals”) seldom attract scholarly attention. The lack of scholarly attention is an error, particularly in the pharmaceutical field. Recent case law in the UK reveals that after generic/biosimilar manufacturers successfully revoke patents standing in the way of market entry, divisionals claiming protection for similar subject-matter as the patent that has just been revoked can crop up, hindering generic/biosimilar medicines from entering the market. Moreover, right before or after proceedings start, rightsholders de-designate countries to avoid a negative judgment that may affect a court elsewhere, meaning generic/biosimilar manufacturers initiated legal proceedings for nothing. Such practices demonstrate that divisionals deserve our attention. This article thus fills the scholarly gap by showing how divisionals are (mis)used in practice, before arguing that patent reform is necessary to prevent this from occurring.