DC’s Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act Federally Preempted
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.03.07
In BIO et al. v. District of Columbia et al. (case no. 2006-1593, Fed. Cir. 2007), a Federal Circuit panel declares the District of Columbia’s Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act (“the Act”) preempted by the federal patent laws. The Act makes it unlawful for any drug manufacturer or licensee to sell or supply for sale or impose minimum resale requirements for a patented prescription drug that results in the prescription drug being sold in the District for an “excessive price”, a term not specifically defined. Instead, it provides that excessive pricing exists where the wholesale price of a patented prescription drug in the District is over 30% higher than the comparable price in any high income country in which the product is protected by patents or other exclusive marketing rights, e.g., in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada or Australia. The Act also provides for both public and private enforcement as well as a wide array of remedies, including but not limited to, temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctions to enjoin the sales of prescription drugs in the District at excessive prices, fines, damages, including treble damages, and attorney’s fees.
The panel notes that, while there is no express provision in the patent statute that prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods, state law must yield to congressional enactments if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the purposes and objectives of Congress. In the federal patent statute, Congress strikes a balance between rewarding innovation and providing free consumer access by placing limitations on the scope of a patentee’s exclusionary power, the duration of the patent term and the conditions for patentability. The Act attempts to shift that balance, says the panel, penalizing high prices and limiting the full exercise of the market power that derives from a patent. Thus, the District is seen as having attempted to change federal patent policy within its borders.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
