Amgen Enablement and its Undue Burden on an Overburdened Biomedical Industry.

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Carter Chippi
{"title":"Amgen Enablement and its Undue Burden on an Overburdened Biomedical Industry.","authors":"Carter Chippi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper examines the Supreme Court decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and its profound impact on the patentability of biotechnology inventions, particularly biologic drugs. By virtually eliminating the possibility of claiming genera patents, the decision exacerbates existing challenges within the biologic sector, including high development costs and rigorous regulatory hurdles. The analysis sets forth the enablement requirement's precedent, emphasizing historical case law and the unforeseen implications of setting a stringent standard for biotechnology patents. This paper further critiques suggested industry compromises, deeming them insufficient to address the ramifications of Amgen, and proposes legislative intervention. Options include granting biologics a special exemption from Amgen's requirements or implementing temporary exclusivity periods analogous to the Orphan Drug Act--aimed at balancing public disclosure and innovation incentives. The article argues that without such measures, the research and development of new biologic drug classes may decline significantly, contrary to the Framers' intent of promoting progress through limited monopolies as established in the Constitution.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"38 3","pages":"383-401"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines the Supreme Court decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and its profound impact on the patentability of biotechnology inventions, particularly biologic drugs. By virtually eliminating the possibility of claiming genera patents, the decision exacerbates existing challenges within the biologic sector, including high development costs and rigorous regulatory hurdles. The analysis sets forth the enablement requirement's precedent, emphasizing historical case law and the unforeseen implications of setting a stringent standard for biotechnology patents. This paper further critiques suggested industry compromises, deeming them insufficient to address the ramifications of Amgen, and proposes legislative intervention. Options include granting biologics a special exemption from Amgen's requirements or implementing temporary exclusivity periods analogous to the Orphan Drug Act--aimed at balancing public disclosure and innovation incentives. The article argues that without such measures, the research and development of new biologic drug classes may decline significantly, contrary to the Framers' intent of promoting progress through limited monopolies as established in the Constitution.

安进授权及其对负担过重的生物医学行业的不当负担。
本文考察了最高法院在安进公司诉赛诺菲案中的判决及其对生物技术发明,特别是生物药物的可专利性的深远影响。这一决定实际上消除了申请通用专利的可能性,加剧了生物领域现有的挑战,包括高昂的开发成本和严格的监管障碍。分析阐述了使能关系要求的先例,强调了历史判例法和为生物技术专利制定严格标准的不可预见的影响。本文进一步批评了业界妥协的建议,认为它们不足以解决安进的后果,并建议立法干预。选择包括给予生物制剂特别豁免,不受安进要求的限制,或实施类似于《孤儿药法案》(Orphan Drug Act)的临时专卖期——旨在平衡公开披露和创新激励。这篇文章认为,如果没有这些措施,新的生物药物类别的研究和开发可能会大幅下降,这与制宪者通过宪法中确立的有限垄断来促进进步的意图背道而驰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信