Abstract
This Note explains why courts should not only pay special attention to the public interest factor when determining injunctive relief in pharmaceutical cases, but also why they should consider the rights of the patentee to favor the public interest over the convenience of cheaper drugs to the public. Accordingly, Part II of this note provides the history of the Patent Act and the statutory guidelines behind patent enforcement. This section also provides a layout of how the grant and denial of patent injunctions were decided prior to 2006 and the decision in eBay v. MercExchange. This part of the note likewise explains how the court reached its holding in eBay v. MercExchange and how this decision altered the long-used “categorical approach.” Part II also addresses the latest trends in injunctive relief for pharmaceutical companies and the different types of analysis applied to the public interest factor of the four-factor equitable test.
Part III of this note discusses the various arguments in how the public interest factor should be applied, as well as the discrepancies in how the factor has been applied throughout the court system over the years. Courts are split on how the public interest is served in granting permanent injunctions in pharmaceutical cases. Part IV specifically addresses the public interest factor, and argues the courts need to place more emphasis on the public interest factor in pharmaceutical cases than in injunctions for any other industry. Part IV also argues the public is best served when the court grants permanent injunctions in pharmaceutical patent infringement cases.
Recommended Citation
Camille S. Halterman,
Patent Rights v. Public Access: Interpreting the Public Interest Factor in Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement Cases,
42
S. Ill. U. L.J.
499
(2018).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol42/iss3/5