The Supreme Court's Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, LTD. Opinion extends the Exemption from Infringement under Section 271(e)(1) to Biotechnology “Research Tools”

Bradley J Olson

doi:10.1515/jibl.2006.003

The Supreme Court's Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, LTD. Opinion extends the Exemption from Infringement under Section 271(e)(1) to Biotechnology “Research Tools”

Journal of International Biotechnology Law ◽

10.1515/jibl.2006.003 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bradley J Olson

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Patent Infringement ◽

Biotechnology Research ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Research Tools

AbstractThe exemption from patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) was significantly extended by the Supreme Court in

Download Full-text

When is patent infringement not patent infringement? Merck v Integra and the 'safe harbour'

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology ◽

10.5912/jcb185 ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Karen I Boyd

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Generic Drug ◽

Patent Infringement ◽

Commercial Importance ◽

Safe Harbour ◽

Current State ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

History Of ◽

The Law ◽

Research Tools

The Supreme Court recently ruled on the scope of the patent infringement 'safe harbour' of 35 U.S.C. Â§271(e)(1), which was passed by Congress in 1984 to allow generic drug manufacturers to test their drugs before the expiration of the patents that covered the drugs. The scope of the safe harbour has been interpreted by the courts to be much broader than that, and the Supreme Court confirmed the breadth of the exemption. The Supreme Court did not, however, address the application of the safe harbour to research tools, an issue of vast commercial importance. This paper traces the history of the safe harbour and the Merck v Integra decision, and explains the current state of the law and where the law may be going.

Download Full-text

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012973 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 203-203

Author(s):

Kendra Carlson

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Elder Abuse ◽

Skilled Nursing Facility ◽

Pressure Sores ◽

Care Providers ◽

Nursing Facility ◽

Skilled Nursing ◽

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text