Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Patents

The Humira patent thicket, the Noerr–Pennington doctrine and antitrust’s patent problem

Nature Biotechnology volume 40, pages 1761–1763 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

A recent federal appellate court decision will make challenging future pharmaceutical ‘patent thickets’ an uphill battle.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. Drug Pricing Investigation. AbbVie — Humira and Imbruvica, https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Committee%20on%20Oversight%20and%20Reform%20-%20AbbVie%20Staff%20Report.pdf (2021).

  2. In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, 465 F. Supp. 3d 811 (N.D. Ill., 2020).

  3. Eastern Railroad Presidents v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 395 U.S. 127 (1961).

  4. United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).

  5. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1992).

  6. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 20–2402 (7th Cir. 2022).

  7. US Constitution, amend. I.

  8. Inazu, J. & Neuborne, B. Interactive Constitution: right to assemble and petition. National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/267 (2017).

  9. Sorell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011).

  10. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

  11. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115 (1989).

  12. Feldman, R. C. & Lemley, M. A. William Mary Law Rev. 63, 1869–1937 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lao, M. Rutgers Law Rev. 55, 965–1026 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wu, T. Antitrust & Corruption: Overruling Noerr (Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14–663, 2020).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Boston, MA, USA

    Ryan Knox

  2. JAMA, Chicago, IL, USA

    Gregory Curfman

Authors
  1. Ryan Knox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory Curfman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory Curfman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knox, R., Curfman, G. The Humira patent thicket, the Noerr–Pennington doctrine and antitrust’s patent problem. Nat Biotechnol 40, 1761–1763 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01583-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01583-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing