Steerpike is correct in saying: "If a patent claim covers A, B, C, & D, you can make A, B, & C all you want without infringing."
I see no way that a patent newly issued to company X can prevent a generic company Y from producing the original (now off-patent) drug, with its original packaging, delivery system, etc. A buyer may prefer to buy X's "new improved" version, but this is a market-preference, not a legal-blockage, issue. None of Y's rights to make the original drug are abridged by the existence of X's new patent, even if the new drug is only marginally different from the old.
Can anyone here tell me what legal impediment "evergreening" imposes on a generic maker who wants to market the old drug? I'm deeply puzzled by all the claims I've seen about such impediments.
[Note: I do agree with Steerpike that any invention should be sufficiently novel (and nonobvious and useful) to warrant a patent at all. But this is a different legal issue.]
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by RL.
Re: Re: Response to: Steerpike on Apr 1st, 2013 @ 4:07pm
I see no way that a patent newly issued to company X can prevent a generic company Y from producing the original (now off-patent) drug, with its original packaging, delivery system, etc. A buyer may prefer to buy X's "new improved" version, but this is a market-preference, not a legal-blockage, issue. None of Y's rights to make the original drug are abridged by the existence of X's new patent, even if the new drug is only marginally different from the old.
Can anyone here tell me what legal impediment "evergreening" imposes on a generic maker who wants to market the old drug? I'm deeply puzzled by all the claims I've seen about such impediments.
[Note: I do agree with Steerpike that any invention should be sufficiently novel (and nonobvious and useful) to warrant a patent at all. But this is a different legal issue.]
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by RL.
Submit a story now.