March 6, 2009
Posted by on
When we reported on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine, we wondered what the effect would be on legislation proposed by Reps. Waxman and Pallone. We did not have to wonder long — they introduced legislation yesterday, with a parallel effort from Sens. Kennedy and Leahy, to moot the Supreme Court’s decision in Reigel v. Medtronic and reinstate (har) state tort liability for PMA-approved medical devices.
March 4, 2009
Posted by on
The Patent Reform Act of 2009 was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill includes Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) as a co-sponsor. Notably missing from the list of co-sponsors is Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Provisions relating to inequitable conduct have been removed from the previous version introduced last year. Inequitable conduct is a critical provision for the larger pharmaceutical companies. Provisions relating to apportionment of damages are of secondary importance to large pharma, but critical to biotech. The biotech industry does not favor the current damages language. The fact that inequitable conduct provisions are missing means that large pharma will focus its opposition to the patent reform bill on damages provisions.
The text of the Senate bill is not up on Thomas yet, but you can find the full text as introduced here (pdf). See also Dennis’ Patently-O post with summary and commentary.
February 20, 2009
Posted by on
The NY Times Business section (and the WSJ Health Blog) this morning picked up the story — that we noted last week — that Waxman and Pallone plan to reintroduce legislation essentially reversing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Reigel v. Medtronic. Those stories also note a Senate version to be introduced by Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Leahy.
The basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in Reigel v. Medtronic is the interpretation of the Medical Devices Amendments of 1976, so by enacting changes that specifically disclaim preemption of state tort law, Congress could effectively moot the Supreme Court’s ruling.
However, two state-level developments may change the debate:
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision this week in Blunt v. Medtronic, which was dictated by Reigel v. Medtronic, may create additional pressure in favor of federal action and maintaining state tort liability (although note that only two of seven justices signed on to the Wisconsin concurring opinion decrying the result); but on the other hand
- The Georgia Senate Economic Development Committee held its first hearing yesterday on legislation protecting Georgia-based businesses or companies with more than 200 employees headquartered out of state from liability for defects in any drug or medical device that has been approved by the FDA. If this initiative is successful, and is replicated in other states, both the Supreme Court’s ruling(s) and the federal legislation would be moot, since there would be no underlying state tort liability.