Lamar Smith: “In 2001, a biotech entity called the Medicines Company, or MedCo, submitted an application for a patent extension that…”

“In 2001, a biotech entity called the Medicines Company, or MedCo, submitted an application for a patent extension that the PTO ruled was 1 day late. This application would have extended patent protection for a drug the company developed called Angiomax. In August 2010, a U.S. district court ordered the PTO to use a more consistent way of determining whether the patent holder submitted a timely patent extension application. The PTO is implementing that decision and believes the court's decision resolves the problem for MedCo. Because of this ongoing litigation, the manager's amendment struck language pertaining to MedCo. The Conyers amendment seeks to reinsert that provision. The Conyers amendment essentially codifies the district court's decision, but it ignores the fact that this case is on appeal. We need to let the courts resolve the pending litigation. It is standard practice for Congress not to interfere when there is ongoing litigation. If the Federal circuit rules against MedCo, generic manufacturers of the drug could enter the marketplace immediately rather than waiting another 5 years. This has the potential to save billions of dollars in health care expenses. While the amendment is drafted so as to apply to other companies similarly situated, as a practical matter, this is a special fix for one company. Finally, it would be more appropriate for this to be considered as a private relief bill.…”