There was a recent article discussing the patent dispute between Medtronic and the Edwards Life Science company. This debate is interesting in looking at whether certain patents should be upheld if it affects the well-being of people in society.
I believe the article also brings up an interesting point of whether the needs of many outweigh the interests of the company. In this case, the Edwards company is capable of making a large profit if Medtronics is banned from selling their aortic valve replacement. Is it better to keep the business interests satisfied over those of the patients? The patients would be the ones adopting the use of the new device. It is also important to realize that this case is related to many life and death situations. The aortic valve device is capable of saving lives and if providing a Medtronic device can save more lives that may be beneficial.
Another point is the expired patent has already been proven to be infringed by Medtronics. It may be important to have Edwards Life Science company look past the patent and perhaps allow a competitor coexist in the marketplace. However, it is understandable that Edwards is trying to remain dominant in the aortic valve replacement market.
It may be also important to realize that the ones with the patent may not be the ones to stay in the market. In the case of Johnson & Johnson, this company was dominant in the stent market until it started charging ridiculous prices for the device. As a result, they made a market exit even with the patents but were also able to obtain payment from the other competitors that infringed. In the case that Edwards Life does win, it may be important for them to historically look back and realize that their actions may affect the business and alienate patients.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/04/21/will-edwards-snatch-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-its-victory-over-medtronic/
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/medtronic-enforcement-patients.html
I have always that patents for biomedical devices can be potentially very dangerous and this seems like one of those cases. In the event of a life or death situation for patients, I think companies should put aside their feuding and work together to save a life. But as these corporations don't actually interact with the individuals they make products for, I guess they don't really care. However, is it fair to put a price on a human life? Many companies with faulty parts have done that in the past, weighing the cost of a recall vs. that of potential lawsuits. But that is unethical. And especially in an industry where ethics is so important, since it can mean the death of another person, patents should come second to human lives. Always.
ReplyDeleteI think the point you bring up about life or death patents is very interesting and crucial to our patent system. In my opinion there must be some intervention on the part of the USPTO to allow life-saving technologies to be kept on the market if it means a better standard of care available to the masses. This is a fine line and does open a can of worms; however, with a knowledgeable group of people deciding on a case-by-case basis, I believe that it is something that can be achieved. After all, there is nothing more important or valuable than human life.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I love that this post relates to your academic background in bioengineering — more specifically, medical devices! Your statement of the importance of realizing "that the ones with the patent may not be the ones to stay in the market" really struck a chord with me. I wonder how that applies to the smartphone market. Even though Apple and Samsung are fighting neck and neck for patent domination in the global marketplace, will it really matter in the long run? I guess only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteHi Norman,
ReplyDeleteI think your blog post is great. It's a very important question to consider. Should we able to patent technologies which are critical to living, such as health technologies? This is a question that will continue to be asked as bioengineering continues to grow. I think we both know from our bioengineering capstone course that there is a lot more than just the industry's needs to consider: patients' well-being, ease of use of biomedical device for clinician, accuracy, precision, and much more. So, I think there's a lot to think about in biomedical device patents.
Hi Norman! I like how you brought up the discussion of how whether the needs of many outweigh the interests of the company. I think when it comes to patents, it is difficult to choose which side to take—the patient’s interests or the business interests. Part of the reason to have a patenting system is to provide businesses an incentive to invent more products first and make money off them. It is true that the aortic valve device is capable of saving lives. There is a whole cost analysis when it comes to which company will actually be successful, because as you mentioned, companies with the patent may not be the ones that actually stay in the market (for example with Johnson and Johnson and stents).
ReplyDeleteMedical patent cases are very tough to analyze with a bias opinion. Usually when looking at patents and determining infringement, the only factors that should be accounted for are the claims and the relevant parties. Yet there are so many outside stakeholders on the brink of life and death situation that the decisions should take into consideration. That is why almost everything should be in a case by case basis. Especially when we are trying to create a fair society that is most healthy for everyone. I hope that companies also think about patients' well-being over their own profitability.
ReplyDelete