Patent law - pharmaceuticals - Federal Circuit upholds patents for AIDS treatment drug. - Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories that Barr's attempts to market a generic version of AZT infringed on the patent rights of Burroughs, the patent-holder for AZT. Though AZT had been tested by the National Institute of Health and some of the AIDS drug research was funded by the government, the court found that Burroughs inventorship was sufficient to warrant exclusive patent rights. Policy arguments based on the high cost of AZT have been made to suggest that generics be allowed, but altering the patent system would affect the incentives faced by researchers.

Drug therapy, Intellectual property, AIDS (Disease), Zidovudine

---

Corporate law - takeover defenses - Northern District of Georgia upholds continuing director provision of poison pill

Article Abstract:

The US Northern District Court in Georgia erred in Invacare Corp. v. Healthdyne Technologies, Inc. by upholding the legality of a continuing directors poison pill provision as a takeover defense because the defense abrogates shareholders' rights. In a noncoercive tender offer, the defense violates shareholder voting rights in contravention to the intent of the Georgia code. The decision instead should have followed the standard of review formulated by the Delaware Court of Chancery in Blasius Industries v. Atlas Corp.

Laws, regulations and rules, Corporate directors, Acquisitions and mergers, Georgia

---

To bar or not to bar: prosecution history estoppel

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. did not go far enough in its treatment of the patent law doctrine of equivalents when it did not define the boundaries of prosecution history estoppel. The Court correctly affirmed the doctrine of equivalents and should have referred to its prior cases on the issue of the scope of estoppel. Estoppel should be strictly applied in cases where amendments have been made by patentees as a result of prior art rejections.

Case Note, Estoppel, Prosecution

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Antitrust - McCarran-Ferguson immunity - Ninth Circuit finds reinsurers potentially liable for involvement in developing standardized policies
• Abstracts: Administrative law and bureaucratic reality. Federal agency use of audited self-regulation as a regulatory technique
• Abstracts: Evidence - expert testimony - Sixth Circuit holds that expert testimony is not needed to establish a standard of care in surrogacy cases
• Abstracts: Failure to notify plan participants of certain plan amendments did not violate ERISA s. 204(h). Supreme Court holds that nonfiduciaries cannot be liable under ERISA for monetary damages; Metzenbaum introduces bill to overturn
• Abstracts: Taxation; the tax details are sketchy, but the consequences for employers' current plans could be enormous. The IRS, in recently released final regulations, has clarified when executive pay that exceeds $1 million may be deducted by a publicly held corporation

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.