Summary

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic Inc…

That added to the provision prohibiting patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 271, the paragraph at issue here, establishing that " [i] t shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, or sell a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs." § 271 (e) (1) . This allows competitors, prior to the expiration of a patent, to engage in otherwise infringing activities necessary to obtain regulatory approval.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic Inc…

We think the Court of Appeals' interpretation is confirmed, however, by the structure of the 1984 Act taken as a whole.
Under federal law, a patent "grant [s] to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, . . . the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention throughout the United States." 35 U.S.C. § 154. Except as otherwise provided, "whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic Inc…

The parties agree that the 1984 Act was designed to respond to two unintended distortions of the 17-year patent term produced by the requirement that certain products must receive premarket regulatory approval. First, the holder of a patent relating to such products would as a practical matter not be able to reap any financial rewards during the early years of the term. When an inventor makes a potentially useful discovery, he ordinarily protects it by applying for a patent at once.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature