Minnesota Law Review

Note, Evaluating the Integraty of Biotechnology Research Tools: Merck v. Integra and the Scope of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)

Patents are critical in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors. However, patents have inhibited competition in certain instances. For example, until the 1980s, pioneer drug companies benefited from a de facto “patent term windfall” because generic manufacturers could not begin the regulatory approval process of their generics until after the pioneer drug patent expired. In response, Congress enacted the Hatch-Waxman Act. This legislation included a new infringement exemption, codified at 35 U.S. C. § 271(e)(1), that allows generic companies to begin the approval process before the pioneer patent expires so that generic equivalents can be brought to market upon expiration of the pioneer patent.

Although § 271(e)(1) seems straightforward, courts have slowly expanded the infringement exemption. In the recent decision of Merck v. Integra, the Supreme Court further extended the exemption’s reach, raising questions as to whether biotechnology research tools used to develop new pharmaceuticals are covered by the exemption. This Note argues that biotechnology research tools should not be covered by the exemption because (a) research tools are not “patented inventions” within the meaning of § 271(e)(1), and (b) expanding the exemption to include research tools would remove the economic incentive to develop biotechnology research tools.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days