In a blow to the pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a controversial procedure for reviewing patent disputes does not violate the constitutional rights of patent holders.

Known as inter partes reviews, these are heard before a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appeals board, not a court, and anger drug makers because they are easier and faster to pursue than typical patent lawsuits. Drug companies have argued patents are private property that may be revoked only by a federal court and the review process violates a constitutional right to be heard by a court and jury.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Double jeopardy (and with weaker procedural safeguards at that) does tilt the delicate balance established by Hatch-Waxman in favor of generic challengers. But in all fairness, pharma brought this on itself with patent filing after patent filing, year after year, to keep zombie drugs like Restasis “evergreen” long after they should have ceded the market gracefully to generics.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy