Skip to content

The Center's Amicus Briefs

  

 Case I: Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals

On Feb. 28, Professor Gregory Dolin, with the help of the attorneys at Duane Morris, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United State in the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. The case deals with particular type of patent settlement agreements entered into by brand name and generic drug manufacturers where in exchange for payment of money by the brand-name manufacturer, the generic manufacturer agrees to drop any challenges to the brand name’s patent and stay off the market for an agreed-upon period of time (not to exceed the term of the patent). Professor Dolin and other signatories to the brief argued that such settlements, because they are entered into against the background of exclusive patent rights held by the brand-name manufacturers, do not hurt consumers and do not violate antitrust law. Professor Dolin has published a scholarly article on this issue, which served as the basis for the brief and appears in Vol. 24 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

Attorneys Robert Byer, Edward Biester and Kristina Caggiano of Duane Morris served as counsel of record for the matter on a pro bono basis. The University of Baltimore School of Law wishes to express its deep appreciation to these attorneys and the firm as a whole for volunteering their services for this project. The brief can be accessed here.

The faculty of University of Baltimore School of Law is well-represented on both sides of this case. Professor Max Oppenheimer was a signatory to Professor Dolin’s brief, while Professor Will Hubbard was a signatory to a brief arguing the opposite position. Such breadth of opinion illustrates the vibrant intellectual life of the law school--and of the Intellectual Property and Medicine and Law programs in particular.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments on March 25 and a decision is expected by the end of June.

 

Case II: Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics 

On March 14, the Center for Medicine and Law, led by its co-director, Professor Gregory Dolin, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United State in the case of Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether, under the Patent Act, human genes can be patented. The Center for Medicine and Law, Professor Dolin and other signatories to the brief argued that the language of the Patent Act, its history and proper public policy support a broad reading of patent eligibility criteria, and that genetic materials satisfy the requirements of the Patent Act. Professor Dolin’s most recent scholarship addressed this issue and was heavily cited in the brief. His article on the patentability of genetic materials appears in Vol. 98 of the Iowa Law Review.  

Attorney Bruce D. Abramson of Rimon, P.C. served as counsel of record for the matter on a pro bono basis. Attorney Miles Zaremski of the Zaremski Law Group also consulted on the brief. The University of Baltimore School of Law wishes to express its deep appreciation to these attorneys for volunteering their services for this project. The brief can be accessed here.

The faculty of University of Baltimore School of Law is well-represented on the both sides of this case. While the center’s and Professor Dolin’s brief argued that human genes are eligible for patent protection, Professor Will Hubbard was a signatory to a brief arguing the opposite position. Such a breadth of opinion illustrates the vibrant intellectual life of the law school--and of the Intellectual Property and Medicine and Law programs in particular.

The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on April 15, and a decision is expected by the end of June.