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

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]