Faculty Post: Supreme Court of India Rejects Pharmaceutical Patent Application

by Professor Brook K. Baker

This is an exciting day for me to be writing an admissions blog for the School of Law because the Supreme Court of India has just issued a landmark decision rejecting a patent application for a Novartis cancer medicine, Glivec.

Wait a minute, you might ask, how can it be important what a court in India does about something as esoteric as a patent on one drug.  Well, because India, like many countries previously, did not grant patents on medicines from 1972-2005, it developed a robust generic industry capable of producing medicines to global quality standards.  India became the “pharmacy of the developing world” thereafter, particularly with respect to AIDS medicines where its companies supply nearly 90% of the antiretrovirals used to treat 8 million HIV-infected people in low- and middle-income countries. Even when India was forced to become compliant with the WTO agreement addressing intellectual property rights, it adopted strict (high) standards of patentability designed to prevent so-called secondary patents on minor variations of existing medicines.

I have worked with an international coalition of AIDS activists for 13 years who have, among many other things, worked for the adoption of these strict standards of patentability in India and to preserve those protections.  Novartis, on the other hand, has filed successive court suits against India’s strict standards of patentability, first challenging them as unconstitutional and contrary to international law.  That case was thrown out in 2007 by the Madras High Court.  More recently, Novartis raised a more technical argument that attempted to eviscerate India’s strict patent standards on pharmaceuticals by arguing either that they don’t ordinarily apply or that the standard should be reinterpreted to cover such issues as solubility and shelf life rather than therapeutic efficacy.  In a decision, now celebrated around the world, the Supreme Court of India rejected that challenge, labeling it essentially frivolous.

The threat to Indian generics, which for AIDS medicines cost .5% of what they cost in United States, is not over.  Both the European Union and the United States are proposing terms in “free” trade agreements that would make high standards such as those in India unlawful.  The U.S. is putting intense diplomatic pressure on India both with respect to these standards and with respect to other lawful flexibilities that India has incorporated into its patent law.  I got up at 5:00 this morning to read the opinion, to contact journalists, and to write on activists listserves about the decision.  This is the kind of issue that brings passion to my scholarship, service, and teaching at Northeastern.

Faculty Post: Property Laws Affect All of Us

Colorado Meadows

by Professor Mary E. O’Connell

Spending a semester sitting in property law.  Sound exciting?  Well, do you know who owns your spleen?  Do you think you do? Well, hang on to it.  When John Moore’s spleen was removed during cancer surgery, cells taken from it were turned into a cell line that earned a lot of money for the University of California.  Did Mr. Moore own the cells that had been taken from his body? Nope.  Did he get any of the proceeds from the Mo cell line – ironically given his name? None.

How about the rain?  What if, being pretty green, you decide that putting out a rain barrel and catching the rain to use it on your garden an eco-friendly way to go. Great idea?  Well, stay east of the Mississippi River.  Once you venture into the high desert, things get a little dicey.  Colorado would be safe. In 2009, the Colorado legislature passed two new laws to make legal what had been illegal since Colorado became a U.S. territory in 1861—collecting rain as it fell from the sky.  The laws were needed because under Colorado’s “prior appropriation” water system, every drop of water in the state is owned by someone, and a raindrop was just somebody’s water on its way home.  Utah held out longer, but as of 2011, you can take your rain barrel there too.  But an Oregon man who built three reservoirs on his land to catch rainwater went to jail last year. He didn’t have a water rights permit from the Oregon Water Resources Department.

“Ownership” may sound like a technical concept – and in some ways it is.  And defining and regulating ownership is one of property law’s major tasks.  If someone can own it, it’s property. But what is property?  The mind-bending part of the property course is that the definition is always changing and law is usually running to keep up with science, technology – and the weather.  Before the science developed to grow human cells in self-replicating cell lines, Mr. Moore’s spleen would not exactly have been a prize.  And when the earth seemed to be full of fresh water, only deserts – like Oregon and Colorado – treated it as “owned” as it fell from the sky.  But who owns the water is likely to be one of the great property debates of the 21st century.  Japan, with a shrinking population and substantial fresh water, is selling some of its water rights to China.  The United Nations recently warned that by 2015, two-thirds of the earth will be “water stressed”.  The wars and ecological disasters that our thirst for petroleum brought us (BP is being tried for gross negligence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster as I write this) may pale in comparison to the coming water wars.

And speaking of petroleum, the receding ice cap at the North Pole is opening access to parts of the sea bottom that have been encased in ice throughout human memory.  The U.S., Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have all made the claim that their territory extends under the sea into the polar region – rich with, of course, petroleum.

Can sensible people of good will make rational plans for allocating the earth’s resources? Can we harness the promises of science without stripping individuals of their rights and their dignity?  Ah, well, just another day in property class!

Tech problems applying?

 

English: QWERTY keyboard, on 2007 Sony Vaio la...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia/Creative Commons Use)

 

We understand that some prospective students are still having difficulty utilizing the Law School Admission Council website. If you are encountering problems (technologically-speaking) trying to apply to Northeastern, give us a call at (617) 373-2395 and we will see what we can do to help. Do not panic; we will work with you submit your application!

 

Faculty Post: The Downside of Discretion: Prosecutorial Overreaching in Boston?

courthouse, Boston

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Boston (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Professor Daniel S. Medwed

I sincerely hope that you decide to join us in the Fall! One of the wonderful features of studying here is that Northeastern University School of Law faculty members often seek to share their research passions with you and work on joint scholarly projects.  I teach and write in the area of criminal law, with a special interest in the topics of wrongful convictions and prosecutorial ethics.  My recent book, Prosecution Complex: America’s Race to Convict and its Impact on the Innocent (NYU Press, 2012), explores how discretionary decisions by prosecutors can inadvertently contribute to the conviction of innocent because of cognitive biases and an overly-deferential regime of legal and ethical rules.  In Chapter One, “Charging Ahead,” I focus on how prosecutors might become consumed by “tunnel vision” after reviewing an arrest file and then develop a firm hypothesis of guilt despite evidence to the contrary.  This could lead to the filing of criminal charges against innocent suspects or, at a minimum, the filing of excessive charges in cases where the suspect may be “guilty” but perhaps not deserving of severe punishment.

In recent weeks, Carmen Ortiz, the chief federal prosecutor in Massachusetts, has come under attack for a series of dubious charging decisions in her office.  Most notably, observers have criticized her office’s vigorous pursuit of renowned internet activist Aaron Swartz for allegedly hacking into a proprietary database and disseminating legions of scholarly articles to the public.  The weight of the pending criminal charges may have played a role in Swartz’s decision to commit suicide earlier last year.  The publicity surrounding the Swartz matter has prompted investigative journalists and lawyers to dig deeper into her office’s practices — and the results are startling.  A joint investigation by the local NPR affiliate, WBUR, and the journal Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly exposed that Ortiz’s lieutenants have apparently sought indictments in a number of borderline cases.

Being a prosecutor is undoubtedly a tough job, among the toughest in the legal profession.  As a result, we must defer, on some level, to their exercise of discretion.  But deference does not necessarily mean acceptance.  We need to scrutinize the decisions of our nation’s top law enforcement officials to make sure they are not overreaching and exceeding the boundaries of their vast powers.  Please come to NUSL and help me do this!

Application Deadline Extended!

Due to technical issues with the Law School Admissions Council website (www.lsac.org), which have also impacted our access to applicant information, we have decided to extend our application deadline until Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

If you encounter problems accessing our electronic application, the LSAC website, or submitting your application, please first contact LSAC Technical Support at (215) 968-1393. You may also contact us at (617) 373-2395 or lawadmissions@neu.edu and we will work with you.

We appreciate your patience and look forward to receiving your applications!

Faculty Post: Civil Rights & Restorative Justice

by Professor Margaret A. Burnham

As of this writing, the Alabama Legislature is poised to adopt a measure that would illustrate perfectly the measures that states can take to address even remote miscarriages of justice.  On February 12, the legislature’s Judiciary Committee approved a bill to allow the Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole to grant posthumous pardons, paving the way to pardon the famous Scottsboro defendants, who were charged with capital rape in 1931 and who are now all deceased.  Alabama joins a number of other states excavating and redressing past racial harms.

Scottsboro was once just a small mountain town in the northeast corner of Alabama – until the arrest of nine youths on charges of interracial rape catapulted the place onto the international stage and linked its name with that of the accused youths, known universally as the “Scottsboro Boys.”  The Scottsboro case defined and reflected the politics of race, gender, class, and regional conflict of the interwar years. The legal case commenced in March 1931, but not until 1950 was the last of the accused paroled from an Alabama prison.  In the end the defendants served, collectively, more than 100 years in prison.  In the United States, the case was the most significant arena of interracial organizing since slavery.  Thousands of young Americans came to the cause of civil rights as a result of the movement protesting the treatment of the Scottsboro defendants. The case also broke new legal ground, for the Supreme Court addressed the Alabama prosecutions of the Scottsboro defendants in two landmark decisions, marking a rare departure from the Court’s practice of leaving state courts free from federal oversight.  In Powell v. Alabama, the Court established that a defendant in a capital case has a due process right to counsel, and in Norris v. Alabama, the Court held the exclusion of blacks from state grand and petit juries violated the Equal Protection Clause.

It all started when an Alabama sheriff removed nine youths, ranging in age from thirteen to twenty, from a train passing through northern Alabama headed to Memphis.  The hoboing youths were searching for work and food, as were several young white riders.  What began as a fight between the two groups led to the allegation that the black youths had raped two young white women, who were also hopping a ride on the train. The nine were speedily locked up in Scottsboro, where, a few days later, hoping to head off an ugly mob set on a lynching party, the authorities convened a grand jury to indict the group.  Within two weeks after the arrests, on evidence most observers thought to be weak, eight of the nine were tried, convicted, and sentenced to be executed in July 1931.

After the death sentences the Alabama county court prepared to return to its regular business, and nothing more might have come of the matter but for the involvement of civil rights lawyers and activists, who, having learned of the convictions and impending executions, rallied international support for the accused and successfully appealed the cases in the state and federal courts.  Protests across Europe and the United States focused fresh attention on southern justice and American race relations.  By most accounts the accused were innocent – one of the two alleged victims recanted – but they spent decades defending themselves and years in prison.  In 1950, nineteen years after the freight train stopped in Alabama, the last Scottsboro “Boy,” Andy Wright was released from prison in Alabama and paroled to New York City.  Then in 1976, Governor George Wallace pardoned another defendant, Clarence Norris, who, having violated his Alabama parole in 1947, was living in New York.  Hence the case came to a close, forty-five years after it started – or so we thought, until last week’s developments in Montgomery.

If the Alabama legislature gives the state’s parole board a green light to grant a pardon, it will be following in the footsteps of other states that have granted relief,  posthumously, to wrongfully convicted victims of race-infected criminal proceedings.  In 2006, a Mississippi judge exonerated a man falsely charged in 1961 with burglary because he sought to attend an all-white college.  Clyde Kennard was sentenced to seven years on the burglary charge, fell ill and died in 1963, shortly after his release from prison.  The exoneration restored his good name and set the record straight more than forty years after his death.  And in 2009, the South Carolina board of pardons granted posthumous relief – a first for that state – to two men who were wrongfully executed for the 1913 murder of a white farmer.

The Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project at Northeastern University School of Law offers legal aid to public officials and communities seeking to render a truthful account of our country’s history of race-based criminal justice and to find appropriate remedies for these remote travesties.  We have compiled the most comprehensive archive on race-based homicides in the country and we have provided legal services to families and communities in over 100 such cases across the country.    While long overdue, this month’s developments in the Scottsboro case signal an important turn in our country’s encounter with past racial harms, suggesting that there are ample means and opportunities to make it right, even seventy two years after the harms.

To learn more about the work of the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project, please take a moment to view “The Trouble I’ve Seen,” which follows the investigations of three harrowing civil rights cold cases.

Prof. Daniel Medwed on Morning Edition about Ortiz

From WBUR: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz was criticized for her office’s prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who killed himself in January. (Elise Amendola/AP)

Northeastern University School of Law professor Daniel Medwed said it is shocking that a federal case could get out of the grand jury, let alone go to trial, without the prosecutor speaking to the alleged victims. The episode raises concerns about whether there are adequate checks and balances in the office, he added — something many critics of the Swartz prosecution noted as well.

“One of the jokes in New York is that they would indict a ham sandwich,” he said. “Well, here in Massachusetts, it seems a federal jury doesn’t even need the protein. It seems it would take only a couple of loaves of bread, given how flimsy and un-nutritious these cases were.”

–from WBUR‘s investigation of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, “Ortiz Under Fire