The first case, Apple v. Samsung, was centered on patent laws. The question was, in the case of patent infringement, whether or not §289 of the Patent Act required total profits incurred to be awarded to the patent holder. The main argument presented was that the patent holder should only receive profits from the “article of manufacture” infringed upon. There would be guidelines set forth to decide what profits were attributable to the article in question. For example, if the infringed patent was for the home button on a cellphone, the Court would deem the button the “article of manufacture” and the profits from that would be then be awarded to the patent holder. The opposition argued that design patents are meant to protect exterior intellectual property; one cannot get a design patent on something that consumers cannot see. Therefore, if the design patent infringement makes one product look very similar to the original product, the sales that result are attributable to the “iconic” design; thus, the total profits from the sales should be awarded to the patent holder. In other words, people buy Samsung phones because they are manufactured to look like iPhones, therefore, Apple is entitled to those profits. For clarification purposes, the Justices compared the situation to cars where decisions to purchase a car can be largely influenced on its exterior design; someone may choose to buy a car that is not a VW bug, but has a similar exterior to a VW bug.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling will be based on patents on electronics, it will, undoubtedly, set a precedent for patents in parallel industries-an example being the pharmaceutical industry. There are certain practices employed by pharmaceutical companies to gain and extend patents. One of these common practices is developing new chemical entities - small modifications of existing, often “off-patent molecules” that can allow for extensions on an expiring patent. Another is to take two existing pharmaceuticals on the market, combine them, and sell the product as a “combination therapy.” The third practice for getting an existing drug approved as a new chemical entity is creating alternative delivery systems such as a controlled release tablet. Depending on the Court’s decision on what is defined as an “article of manufacture,” many of these practices may have to change in response to new patent law. The decision will have an insurmountable effect on intellectual property in general. This could be particularly pertinent to Health IT, medical devices, and, as aforementioned, the pharmaceutical industry.
The second case, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, was brought to the court by petitioner, Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez, on the grounds that his case was tainted by the alleged bias of a juror. In 2010, during jury deliberations of a sexual assault trial, a juror made racist remarks. Referring to the defendant, the juror stated “I think he did it because he’s Mexican. And Mexican men take whatever they want.” The juror, a former law enforcement officer, asserted that “Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls”; these claims were informed by experiences garnered while on patrol. The deadlocked jury did not convict the defendant of a felony, but charged him with three misdemeanors that resulted into two years’ probation. Mr. Pena-Rodriguez challenged his convictions based upon the juror’s comments.
Presently, the Supreme Court will weigh the importance of the Sixth Amendment’s right to an impartial jury versus maintaining secrecy in jury deliberations (not sure if I switched tenses here). Previous precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases, such as Wager v. Shauers, declared that jurors may not testify about what occurred during deliberations. However, when writing about the decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that “there may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged.” She wrote, in reference to the Wager v. Shauers case, “If and when such a case arises, the court can consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process.” Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado provides the court with, as Justice Elena Kagan stated during oral arguments, “a smoking gun for racial bias in jury deliberations.” The two main arguments in the case are:
- Jury deliberations should remain secret as they are of paramount important in the justice system. In addition to this, if we allow secrecy to be broken because of racial or ethnic biases, where would we draw the line?
- Racial bias is a particular stain on our justice system and continues to fail members of our society. Racial remarks said in jury deliberations automatically violate the integrity of an impartial jury, thus, breaking the contract of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
At first glance, these two cases seemingly have little to do with the health field. However, if you take a deeper look into the potential precedents and implications both cases could have, along with the systems that have affected these cases, the intersections may become a bit clearer. For the first case, depending on the Court’s decision on what is defined as an “article of manufacture,” many of the practices used in maintaining patents may have to change in response to new patent law. The decision will have an insurmountable effect on intellectual property in general. This could be particularly pertinent to Health IT, medical devices, and, as aforementioned, the pharmaceutical industry.
In regards to the second case, I can see two clear overarching themes that connect to the health field. For one, the justice system is not the only one that is shrouded by racial discrimination. Take a look at life expectancy or access to healthcare - the same groups marginalized in the justice system are the most likely to not have adequate access to healthcare. These are not merely coincidences, but are a result of the systematic oppression of these vulnerable populations. For the next overarching theme in connection to the health field, I will have to take you back to another Supreme Court case, Batson v. Kentucky. When James Batson was on trial for burglary, there was clear misconduct during jury selection. Batson noted that, while using a peremptory challenge, the prosecutor managed to dismiss all the black people in the jury selection pool. Batson pointed this out to his attorney and told him to object. The lawyer explained to Batson that, per court rules, one cannot object to strikes from the jury. “I don’t care, object anyway,” Batson said to his attorney. Originally, the objection did not affect the outcome of the case; Batson was sentenced to 20 years in prison. However, this started the momentum of the appeals processes that would eventually lead to the Supreme Court Case, Batson v. Kentucky.
This hugely important case formed the Batson Challenge - which describes “an objection to the validity of a peremptory challenge, on grounds that the other party used it to exclude a potential juror based on race.” The Batson Challenge has since been expanded to include ethnicity and sex. The decision in this case is of great importance, but a moment that stuck out to me, was not the decision, but rather, Batson’s plea to “object anyway.” If this moment ceased to happen, if the attorney abided by the rules of the court, this fundamental change to the justice system might not have ever happened. Even though, in this case, there was evidence of racial bias in jury selection and, in Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado there was evidence of racial bias in jury deliberation, the rules of the court did not allow these pieces of evidence to be followed. This is a stark difference from the scientific community.
While those in the scientific community will scrutinize sources of information or data, they are very unlikely to dismiss a piece of evidence due to where it comes from or when the evidence came to light. The scientific method encourages exploration; it requires scientists to grapple with all of the information available. The justice system, however, is bounded by specific rules and procedures. But, when do these governance structures set forth to ensure justice actually impede the very thing-justice- that it tries to achieve? The willingness to deviate from court procedure in Batson’s case was the catalyst for this landmark decision. The Justice’s potential willingness or unwillingness to deviate from court procedures could have an impact on whether or not the statements made by the alleged racist juror can be used as evidence in Rodriguez’s case. In these moments, I think that the justice system can take some notes from the scientific community.
Nothing in our society is held in isolation. Each moving part, each policy, and each decision made has the ability to transform the way that society functions. In addition to this, different sectors can gain a lot of perspective from taking a step back and observing one another. Too often, different industries have Silo mentality. Instead of breaking down the barriers and promoting efficiency, they fall into particular niches. As someone passionate about health policy, I often see this occur in the field. If we are to develop a comprehensive plan for society, the first step is to include a comprehensive gathering of perspectives. The decisions on both of these cases have yet to be made, but, whatever they are, will have a lasting impact on society for years to come. I was extremely grateful for this chance to take a step out of my own comfort zone and explore the intersections that govern and shape our society-to step into the world.