Search

In recent months, pharmaceutical manufacturers have brought legal challenges to a provision of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) empowering the federal government to negotiate the prices Medicare pays for certain prescription medications. One key argument made in these filings is that price negotiation is a "taking" of property and violates the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Through original case law and health policy analysis, we show that government price negotiation and even price regulation of goods and services, including patented goods, are constitutional under the Takings Clause. Finding that the IRA violates the Takings Clause would radically upend settled constitutional law and jeopardize the US's most important state and federal health care programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On March 10, 2021, our journal partnered with the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy to host a symposium addressing the role and impact of U.S. innovation policy on access to medicine. Our 2021 Symposium Issue--Loturne 11, Issue 1--captures that event. The following article represents the second of four panels. This panel asked, "Should the U.S. government actively assert its own patents?" The panel was moderated by Christopher Morten, Deputy Director of NYU Law's Technology Law & Policy Clinic. The panelists included Barry Datlof, Chief of Business Development and Commercialization in the Office of Medical Technology Transfer at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, Professor Amy Kapczynski of Yale Law School, Donna Meuth, Associate General Counsel and Lead Attorney of the U.S. Intellectual Property Department of Eisai, and Zain Rizvi, a policy researcher at Public Citizen who focuses on pharmaceutical innovation and access to medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A substantial portion of biomedical R&D is publicly funded. But resulting medicines are typically covered by patents held by private firms, and priced without regard to the public's investment. The Bayh-Dole Act provides a possible remedy, but its scope is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the spread of intellectual property in trade agreements. We explain how the integration of intellectual property with international trade rules led to the globalization of pharmaceutical patenting, and then how additional provisions related to pharmaceutical products have been introduced by regional and bilateral trade agreements. We describe the additional 'TRIPS-Plus' rules contained in recent trade agreements, which go beyond the requirements of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement, and explain the potential challenges that they may create for developing countries. We draw attention to the conceptual and methodological challenges of assessing the effects of patent provisions in trade agreements on prices and access to drugs, with particular emphasis on the importance of timing. Depending on when countries began allowing drugs to be patented, TRIPS-Plus provisions have different effects; and when pharmaceutical patenting has been in place for more countries for more time, the effects of TRIPS-Plus provisions will change again. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The high cost of patent-protected brand-name drugs can strain budgets and curb the widespread use of new medicines. An example is the case of direct-acting antiviral drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C. While prices for these drugs have come down in recent months, they still create barriers to treatment. Additionally, prescribing restrictions imposed by insurers put patients at increased risk of medical complications and contribute to transmission of the hepatitis C virus. We propose that the federal government invoke its power under an existing "government patent use" law to reduce excessive prices for important patent-protected medicines. Using this law would permit the government to procure generic versions of patented drugs and in exchange pay the patent-holding companies reasonable royalties to compensate them for research and development. This would allow patients in federal programs, and perhaps beyond, to be treated with inexpensive generic medicines according to clinical need--meaning that many more patients could be reached for no more, and perhaps far less, money than is currently spent. Another benefit would be a reduction in the opportunity for companies to extract monopoly profits that far exceed their risk-adjusted costs of research and development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Comments on the role of universities in promoting the patenting of life-saving medicines and technologies. Benefits of patents; Need to develop better patenting strategies; Reasons cited for universities not opting for patenting.