Last month, Abbott Laboratories was sued by Bayer AG’s HealthCare unit, alleging that Abbott's best-selling drug Humira infringes on a Bayer patent. In one new twist, Abbott has sued Bayer AG’s HealthCare unit, claiming the Bayer patent is invalid, not infringed or unenforceable.

As Congress is considering possible legislation to create an abbreviated pathway for the FDA to approve generic biologic therapies, differences in the R&D expense and product cost, and the potential for both new therapies post-approval and second-generation innovations, have raised questions about how to achieve the proper balance between innovation and competition.

In a spate of recent articles, it would seem that the world has come to an end in terms of high-tech IPOs—not to mention venture backing of early-stage start-ups.

It appears that no matter who wins the presidential election this November, both Barack Obama and John McCain back expanded use of generic drugs as a way to lower drug costs. According to their advisers, both campaigns have pledged their support to help create a market for generic biotech drugs or biosimilars.

One way drug companies are compensated for the regulatory burden of seeking FDA approval is the extension of patent terms. One of the eligibility requirements for a patent term extension is that the permission for the commercial marketing or use of the product be the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.

Like many things in life, it’s always easy to criticize the other side. So, what is true?

Is Abbott deliberately playing smoke-and-mirrors via the courts to stifle competition or merely protecting its patents as it is required to do?

Many of the largest universities and research institutions in the country are state-owned and their inventions are often patented