I will have more, once PhRMA's amicus brief is available to the public (it hasn't been distributed to the appellate panel yet) -- but it will likely read a lot like this one, from about a year ago -- in another case. And a bit, from the earlier trial level motions -- seeking an end to the Mohawk Tribe license gambit:
As I've said before, I do favor strong IP protections for true innovators -- but I do not favor perpetual monopolies. And that seems to be where Mr. Saunders' Allergan filings are headed. [More of my background, on this spat, here.]
. . . .This transaction was not a genuine purchase of intellectual property by the Tribe. Rather, Allergan paid for the use of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity to thwart the parallel inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Allergan admitted as much in its October 10 filing with the Court conceding that the alleged “consideration” provided by the Tribe was nothing more than the Tribe’s promise not to waive its sovereign immunity in the IPR proceedings. Thus, there has been no real change in ownership — just a maneuver to derail the PTAB’s ongoing review of Allergan’s patents. . . .
The sham nature of the transaction with the Tribe is further underscored by the fact that the Tribe did not pay Allergan a cent for the patents claiming Restasis, which generated $1.4 billion in 2016 sales, or $4 million dollars a day. Instead, it was Allergan whopaid the Tribe $13.75 million up-front to take faux title to the Restasis patents. . . .
Now you know -- and we will update when we have PhRMA's actual brief in this appeal available to us.
UPDATED: 01.31.18 -- brief unsealed.
Onward, even as the January ice, of yet another new year presents. . . new opportunities -- and new potentials, for renewed. . . friendships, Dante. . . . Smile. . . .
नमस्ते
4 comments:
Off topic but related to health and science; not sure you saw but HHS has just created an Office of Conscience and Religious Freedom. They're hosting a symposium today and it will be accompanied by a protest. The symposium will be streamed live: www.hhs.gov/live
Thanks so much for the heads up, erstwhile Anon.!
I would likely not have seen this for a week or so, without your keen eyes. . . and it is likely a topic for multiple posts.
I do support free exercise -- but I also think choosing to work at a non-religiously-affiliate health care provider or research lab means that "part of the job". . . will occasionally be. . . provision of services, research, or science that (at least some feel) contradicts one or more church's teachings.
I generally feel choosing human health care as a provider/profession means one cannot impose one's religious or moral views, upon a patient seeking lawful services.
And abortions are clearly lawful services, under controlling US law.
I do think that if one wants to offer religiously-themed health care, one should do so at a religiously-affiliated provider.
Federal funds ought to be spent for all lawful services -- abortions included.
Church-affiliated hospitals may rightly (under existing law) refuse to perform such services. That -- in my mind, is how the balance ought to be struck.
But this new office:
https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html
. . .plainly aims to go well beyond the existing law, as outlined by the SUpremes.
As such, I have only one question: Why is it that the US DOJ Civil Rights Division and the EEOC Civil Rights Division are. . . (per 45) incapable of enforcing these very same laws?
My perhaps cynical (but born of hard experience) answer is that those well-regarded agencies focus on real priorities, larger burden civil rights violations --
not the "one-in-a-million" type of case 45 is now creating an entire office to look for, and bring.
So much for cutting meaningless red tape, eh?
All of that said -- I support all providers' rights to practice medicine wherever they feel their values and religious lives. . . lead them.
Just as I support the right of other non-religious providers to simply do what the patients ask, as a matter of basic human dignity, and a fundamental right to control ones' own body.
Great topic -- and one that (I am almost sure) will result in violations of the "no establishment" clause -- as this new offices' lawyers seek to "force fit" some square peg "free exercise" cases into "establishment" round holes. . . . [note that the "NO" is missing from the front of "establishment", there.]
We shall see -- Namaste!
As you ask: Why is it that the US DOJ Civil Rights Division and the EEOC Civil Rights Division are. . . (per 45) incapable of enforcing these very same laws?
I wonder why that same group won't support LGBT rights!
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-department-of-justice-takes-a-stand-against-transgender-rights-in-the-workplace/542154/
Because (as you well know, of course) 45 has said he wants to de-emphasize those civil rights cases, as not in keeping with the hard right religious base he courts.
And this new office likely will help to allow providers to discriminate against LGBT folks as well. . .
Ugh.
Post a Comment