By Topic


Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

1 Author(s)

Should a brand-name drug manufacturer be able to extend the life of its patent exclusivity by getting a patent on a compound that the body makes from one of its drugs? That was the question before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFQ) in the recent case of Schering v. Geneva. To provide an answer, the court had to delve into the challenging question of inherent, as opposed to explicit, disclosures. The case involved the highly successful antihistamine drug, Claritin, and pitted Schering, the discoverer of the drug, against a raft of generic drug manufacturers who wanted to market generic Claritin.

Published in:

Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE  (Volume:23 ,  Issue: 1 )