1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:03,239
Speaker 1: Just issued Supreme Court ruling could make it much harder

2
00:00:03,279 --> 00:00:06,040
Speaker 1: for companies to prevent their products from being resold at

3
00:00:06,040 --> 00:00:08,840
Speaker 1: a discount. The issue for the court was whether patent

4
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:11,360
Speaker 1: holders give up their patent rights when they sell an item.

5
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:15,120
Speaker 1: The court's answer a resounding yes. The ruling came in

6
00:00:15,120 --> 00:00:18,320
Speaker 1: a case involving those printer cartridges that often cost almost

7
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:21,040
Speaker 1: as much as the printer itself. With us to help

8
00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:23,800
Speaker 1: understand the ruling and what about meaning in the marketplace

9
00:00:24,200 --> 00:00:27,160
Speaker 1: are Robin Feldman. She is the director of the Institute

10
00:00:27,240 --> 00:00:30,040
Speaker 1: for Innovation Law at you See Hastings Law School. She

11
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:32,040
Speaker 1: filed a brief that urged the court to reach the

12
00:00:32,120 --> 00:00:35,519
Speaker 1: result that it did. And Gregory Dolan, he's co director

13
00:00:35,840 --> 00:00:38,360
Speaker 1: of the Center for Medicine and Law at the University

14
00:00:38,360 --> 00:00:41,120
Speaker 1: of Baltimore. He filed a brief urging the court to

15
00:00:41,240 --> 00:00:44,120
Speaker 1: rule the other way. Thanks to both of you for

16
00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:47,360
Speaker 1: joining us. Greg, Before we get into all the important

17
00:00:47,440 --> 00:00:50,839
Speaker 1: legal questions in this case, can you just explain to

18
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:53,640
Speaker 1: us who was involved in the case and what the

19
00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:58,840
Speaker 1: dispute between the two companies was. Sure um um the

20
00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:03,040
Speaker 1: case to come and it's both involved in making printer cartridges. UH.

21
00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:08,360
Speaker 1: The plaintiff lex Mark. They make printer cartridges that many

22
00:01:08,360 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 1: people using their printers to um print documents and um

23
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:16,160
Speaker 1: as many people know. These cartridges have ink or other

24
00:01:16,280 --> 00:01:19,360
Speaker 1: materials that me and eventually cards just run out and

25
00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:21,400
Speaker 1: they can be You can either replace the whole cartridge

26
00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:25,080
Speaker 1: or you can refill the old one and um you know,

27
00:01:25,160 --> 00:01:28,479
Speaker 1: reuse it. And the issue in this case was whether

28
00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:32,119
Speaker 1: or not um these cartriges could be refilled. Lex Mark

29
00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:35,480
Speaker 1: had two ways of selling their initial cartridges. They either

30
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:38,080
Speaker 1: sold it to their customers at full price does and

31
00:01:38,160 --> 00:01:40,360
Speaker 1: then customers could do them what they wanted. They could

32
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:43,400
Speaker 1: throw them out, they could readfill whatever, or they sold

33
00:01:43,440 --> 00:01:46,600
Speaker 1: them at a significant discount about discounts on a condition

34
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:49,720
Speaker 1: that they will not be resfiled, and then instead the

35
00:01:49,760 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 1: cartridges spent cars will be sent back to lex Mark

36
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:56,520
Speaker 1: UH impression products. They defended in this case until these

37
00:01:56,520 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 1: old cartridges, both the ones that were sold in the

38
00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:00,559
Speaker 1: United States and the ones that was all the broad

39
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:03,760
Speaker 1: whether or not they were under the first or second program,

40
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:06,680
Speaker 1: and refilled them and then sold them obviously for cheaper

41
00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:09,720
Speaker 1: than the original manufacturer, and that was a dispute whether

42
00:02:09,800 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: or not doing so violates lex marks, patents and Robin.

43
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:19,160
Speaker 1: How did the Supreme Court come to its decision today

44
00:02:19,280 --> 00:02:22,799
Speaker 1: is a big win for free enterprise, which is reflected

45
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:26,960
Speaker 1: in the language throughout the Supreme Court. Under patent exhaustion,

46
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:29,720
Speaker 1: when a product is sold, the patent right ends. In

47
00:02:29,720 --> 00:02:32,480
Speaker 1: other words, if I buy a hammer, I should be

48
00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:34,959
Speaker 1: able to hit any nail I want, or resell it

49
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:38,040
Speaker 1: to anyone I want. Anything else creates bottlenecks in the

50
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:40,640
Speaker 1: flow of commerce, and it comes up the system. The

51
00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:44,320
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision spoke in terms of an auto repair

52
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:47,640
Speaker 1: shop in a way that should make sense to all consumers.

53
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:51,000
Speaker 1: If a car owner drives into the shop, the repair

54
00:02:51,040 --> 00:02:53,320
Speaker 1: should be able to fix the car and not have

55
00:02:53,400 --> 00:02:56,840
Speaker 1: to worry about invisible restrictions that might exist on each

56
00:02:56,919 --> 00:03:01,280
Speaker 1: tiny component of the car. The Supreme Court said, patent

57
00:03:01,440 --> 00:03:04,480
Speaker 1: system doesn't work that way. When you sell an item,

58
00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:07,960
Speaker 1: that's the end of the patent right. Greg. Based on

59
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:10,600
Speaker 1: the brief you file, I'm going to guess that you

60
00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:14,440
Speaker 1: don't agree with that reasoning. If I'm I'm right, what

61
00:03:14,280 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 1: what is the court said that's wrong? Well, I don't

62
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:22,360
Speaker 1: want to go too too far in my disagreement. I

63
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:25,120
Speaker 1: think Robin is right in part in a sense that

64
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:29,560
Speaker 1: there's certainly a huge value and there's certainly this badground notion.

65
00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: Once you sell your patented product, that product should be

66
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 1: able to move in a stream of commerce downstream, and

67
00:03:36,760 --> 00:03:39,880
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have to you know what, I buy use cars.

68
00:03:39,880 --> 00:03:42,119
Speaker 1: That case, maybe I shouldn't have to go and try

69
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 1: to figure out whether each and every one of those components,

70
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:47,480
Speaker 1: you know, what is the patent status. That makes sense,

71
00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 1: and so I agree with Robin on this point. The

72
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 1: issue though, is whether or not it also makes sense

73
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:56,840
Speaker 1: to have these kind of dual tracks, meaning that the

74
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:00,280
Speaker 1: people who bought the car ship with sign you can

75
00:04:00,360 --> 00:04:04,720
Speaker 1: discount whether or not it makes sense to offer the

76
00:04:04,760 --> 00:04:08,680
Speaker 1: same product at multiple price levels in exchange for transferring

77
00:04:08,760 --> 00:04:11,520
Speaker 1: different set of rights. And for some people it makes

78
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:15,040
Speaker 1: sense to pay a full price uh and get the

79
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:16,880
Speaker 1: right not just to use, but to resell, but for

80
00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:20,960
Speaker 1: others makes sense to pay less but not necessarily have

81
00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:22,920
Speaker 1: a right to resell. And so since with the starting

82
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:26,000
Speaker 1: with the chronalogy, I would offer another one. It's the

83
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:28,440
Speaker 1: kind of difference between a buying of a car and

84
00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:29,800
Speaker 1: then you can do with it whatever you want. You

85
00:04:29,800 --> 00:04:31,640
Speaker 1: can gift it, you can keep it, you can crash

86
00:04:31,640 --> 00:04:33,599
Speaker 1: it whatever you want to do with it, and lease

87
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:36,000
Speaker 1: in a car where certainly can use it. But you

88
00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:38,679
Speaker 1: don't have full and unrestricted price to resell. Yes, return

89
00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:41,240
Speaker 1: it to the dealership once a time myself and I

90
00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:43,240
Speaker 1: think that, and you pay different prices, and I think

91
00:04:43,279 --> 00:04:46,800
Speaker 1: that's also a good way and a benefit to consumers.

92
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:49,400
Speaker 1: Do you have both options? We are talking about a

93
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:52,360
Speaker 1: new Supreme Court ruling that says that once a company

94
00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:56,480
Speaker 1: that has a patent sells the product, the company has

95
00:04:57,160 --> 00:04:59,599
Speaker 1: has used up its patent rights in that product and

96
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:03,240
Speaker 1: can't event a product from being resold. That's just out today.

97
00:05:03,600 --> 00:05:06,640
Speaker 1: Our guests are Robin Feldman of the University of California's

98
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:11,039
Speaker 1: Hastings Law School and Gregory Dowan of the University of

99
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:17,360
Speaker 1: Baltimore UM. Robin. A minute ago, greg was was essentially

100
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:22,159
Speaker 1: saying that this ruling will limit the flexibility that patent

101
00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:26,680
Speaker 1: holding companies have. They won't be able to prevent provide

102
00:05:26,760 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: consumers with the kinds of options that the that lex Mark,

103
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:35,040
Speaker 1: the printer cartridge company did in this case. What do

104
00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:39,200
Speaker 1: you think about that? So the Supreme Court essentially said

105
00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:42,279
Speaker 1: you don't get the higher price option the higher price

106
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:45,080
Speaker 1: option is only when you are using patent rights when

107
00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:47,720
Speaker 1: you're not supposed to that that's what you're not allowed

108
00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:51,880
Speaker 1: to do. Uh. You mentioned earlier though, about a trend

109
00:05:51,960 --> 00:05:55,240
Speaker 1: for this decision, and I completely agree. Today's decision is

110
00:05:55,279 --> 00:05:58,200
Speaker 1: another loss for the Federal Circuit, which has become the

111
00:05:58,200 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's favorite whipping boy. Way now, the third Federal

112
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:05,080
Speaker 1: Circuit case the Supreme Court has overturned this year, and

113
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:08,840
Speaker 1: they harshly vacated a fourth. That's a trend we've seen

114
00:06:08,839 --> 00:06:11,920
Speaker 1: for quite some time. So over the last five years,

115
00:06:12,360 --> 00:06:15,800
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has reversed the Federal Circuit the time,

116
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:19,240
Speaker 1: and that does not include when the justices affirmed the

117
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:22,839
Speaker 1: result but rejected the logic. The Federal Circuit is batting

118
00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:26,760
Speaker 1: about zero before the High Court, and I think the

119
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 1: message is clear the High Court. The Supreme Court believes

120
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:33,919
Speaker 1: that the Federal Circuit has been overreaching on behalf of

121
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:38,440
Speaker 1: patent holders and has been dialing back on those types

122
00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:43,880
Speaker 1: of decisions. Gregory, excuse me, Let's go back to consumers

123
00:06:43,920 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: for a moment. Because the companies make like for example,

124
00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:50,960
Speaker 1: lex Mark, they make most of their money off the

125
00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 1: cartridge sales, so is there anything to stop them from

126
00:06:55,360 --> 00:07:00,240
Speaker 1: just putting out one cartridge at a higher price. I

127
00:07:00,240 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 1: think that's exactly right. So I think I disagree with

128
00:07:02,640 --> 00:07:06,600
Speaker 1: robbing against uh not you know somewhat. I don't think

129
00:07:06,640 --> 00:07:08,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Courts said you don't get to charge the higher prices.

130
00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:13,160
Speaker 1: I think Supreme Court said you can charge once. Uh.

131
00:07:13,200 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: And the implication of that that you most companies like

132
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:19,680
Speaker 1: lux Mark will end up charging the higher prices. They

133
00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:24,360
Speaker 1: will basically do away with the discount condition that people

134
00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:27,960
Speaker 1: return the cartridge. So instead people who you know, where

135
00:07:28,040 --> 00:07:30,160
Speaker 1: they were willing to return the cartridge or not, not,

136
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 1: everybody's gonna get charged the higher price. Uh. And ultimately,

137
00:07:34,520 --> 00:07:36,600
Speaker 1: I think for people who used to pay the higher

138
00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:38,880
Speaker 1: price anyways, I think there will be in difference for

139
00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:42,600
Speaker 1: people who were very willing to pay the lower price

140
00:07:42,640 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 1: in exchange for these restrictions, They're actually gonna be worse off.

141
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:48,520
Speaker 1: And I think what making matters worse is that not

142
00:07:48,600 --> 00:07:51,000
Speaker 1: only did Spring Courts say that this rule now applies

143
00:07:51,040 --> 00:07:53,320
Speaker 1: within the United States, they also say that the same

144
00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:56,360
Speaker 1: thing applies if the patentees of the product abroad, and

145
00:07:56,480 --> 00:08:00,120
Speaker 1: that has some serious implications. So, for example, pharmaceuticals are all,

146
00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:03,200
Speaker 1: there's very different prices in the United States and abroad,

147
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:06,080
Speaker 1: especially if you think about third world countries. And if

148
00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:08,600
Speaker 1: people now understand that there's other restrictions as to what

149
00:08:08,640 --> 00:08:10,280
Speaker 1: you can and cannot import to United States, nothing to

150
00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:14,080
Speaker 1: do with patent law. But nonetheless, if people can buy

151
00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 1: drugs that are meant for third world countries for people

152
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:19,120
Speaker 1: who can't afford to pay a lot, and then paying

153
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:21,920
Speaker 1: those lower prices and instead bringing back to the United

154
00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:26,360
Speaker 1: States and sell them here, ultimately perhaps American consumers might

155
00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:28,560
Speaker 1: be better off because they pay lower prices, but that

156
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:31,120
Speaker 1: means that people in third world countries will very much

157
00:08:31,160 --> 00:08:33,720
Speaker 1: be robbed of the opportunity to get access to drugs

158
00:08:34,080 --> 00:08:36,720
Speaker 1: at low cost because companies will no longer be able

159
00:08:36,760 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: to place differentiate And I think that's a problem, Robin. Uh.

160
00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:44,079
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that those international sales, because that was

161
00:08:44,120 --> 00:08:47,360
Speaker 1: the subject of Justice Ginsburg's partial descent and and and

162
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:50,240
Speaker 1: part of the argument is, look, when you're when you're

163
00:08:50,240 --> 00:08:52,960
Speaker 1: selling something abroad, you don't get the charge of that

164
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,360
Speaker 1: higher price. Uh, that that that that comes from that

165
00:08:56,800 --> 00:08:59,520
Speaker 1: comes from having a patent on some things that you're

166
00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:01,720
Speaker 1: perhaps rising at a lower price. And then if somebody

167
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:04,240
Speaker 1: turns around and brings it back into the United States,

168
00:09:04,480 --> 00:09:07,440
Speaker 1: that's really gonna undermine your sales without giving you any

169
00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:13,920
Speaker 1: corresponding benefit to the pharmaceutical pricing areas when I've studied

170
00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 1: a lot and is very troubling. I'm I'm sure most

171
00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:20,120
Speaker 1: of your listeners have had sticker shock going to buy

172
00:09:20,160 --> 00:09:23,480
Speaker 1: medication for themselves or their relatives. With the prices of

173
00:09:23,640 --> 00:09:28,760
Speaker 1: drugs in this country have skyrocketed in recent years. That

174
00:09:28,840 --> 00:09:32,840
Speaker 1: has been less true in the international market, so US

175
00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:38,400
Speaker 1: customers are supporting super high prices here um and paying

176
00:09:38,400 --> 00:09:43,280
Speaker 1: for lower prices abroad. Now, I'm not sure that the

177
00:09:43,360 --> 00:09:48,040
Speaker 1: prediction that prices will rise internationally on pharmaceuticals will hold

178
00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:51,720
Speaker 1: true because lots of other companies have different types of

179
00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:55,560
Speaker 1: payer systems, and pharmaceutical companies don't have the ability to

180
00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:59,160
Speaker 1: charge those higher prices everywhere that they can here. I

181
00:09:59,160 --> 00:10:01,760
Speaker 1: don't think we'll see that, but it would be interesting

182
00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:04,960
Speaker 1: if the effect of the Supreme Court decision would be

183
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:08,120
Speaker 1: to see some discipline of price in this country as

184
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:14,160
Speaker 1: they have gone so high. And Gregory speaking about pharmaceutical products,

185
00:10:14,840 --> 00:10:17,440
Speaker 1: is there more of a danger there with or is

186
00:10:17,440 --> 00:10:21,760
Speaker 1: there more hesitance to reuse certain things like devices like

187
00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:25,960
Speaker 1: cardiac catheters or things like that. Well again, so pharmaceuticals

188
00:10:25,960 --> 00:10:30,680
Speaker 1: there aren't interesting um interesting issue because in addition to

189
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:33,480
Speaker 1: of course the patent rules, there are other rules and

190
00:10:33,600 --> 00:10:41,120
Speaker 1: other regimes that may preclude reimportation um. And there's of

191
00:10:41,160 --> 00:10:43,920
Speaker 1: course into the backstop as you mentioned, that may be

192
00:10:44,200 --> 00:10:46,719
Speaker 1: fear of using or reusing some devices like catheters or

193
00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 1: pacemakers because of the potential for tort losses. But there

194
00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:55,600
Speaker 1: are for example, uh, anti metrobiol drugs that are being

195
00:10:55,600 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 1: sold to combat aids in sub Saharan Africa where people

196
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:00,840
Speaker 1: can't really afford to pay more a dollar a day

197
00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:04,040
Speaker 1: or two dollars a day. Whereas but the way they're

198
00:11:04,080 --> 00:11:06,880
Speaker 1: sold the reason they're also cheaply. There's Robin is right.

199
00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:10,040
Speaker 1: The United States and Western world general, US a bit more,

200
00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:12,640
Speaker 1: the rest of the Western world a bit less subsidizes

201
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:17,760
Speaker 1: those drugs by staying higher prices here. And if we

202
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:21,520
Speaker 1: now are dealing with a doctor of international exhaustion. Uh

203
00:11:21,559 --> 00:11:24,920
Speaker 1: and when everybody with our American consumer or a you know,

204
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:27,720
Speaker 1: some elite consumer can buy a drug that fill for

205
00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:30,240
Speaker 1: two dollars, what's going to happen I think there's those

206
00:11:30,280 --> 00:11:32,640
Speaker 1: two doctors are gonna get reported back into the United States.

207
00:11:32,640 --> 00:11:34,240
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to leave it there, Greg, thank you,

208
00:11:34,280 --> 00:11:37,880
Speaker 1: Greg Dolan, Robin Selman. Coming up, we're gonna talk about

209
00:11:38,000 --> 00:11:41,920
Speaker 1: fiduciary duties by investment advisors. This is Bloomberg