Cargando…
Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem
Our study seeks to determine whether patent thickets covering biologic drugs are responsible for delayed biosimilar market entry. We compare patent assertions against the same biosimilar drugs across three countries. On average nine to twelve times more patents were asserted against biosimilars in t...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac022 |
_version_ | 1784782170564329472 |
---|---|
author | Goode, Rachel Chao, Bernard |
author_facet | Goode, Rachel Chao, Bernard |
author_sort | Goode, Rachel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Our study seeks to determine whether patent thickets covering biologic drugs are responsible for delayed biosimilar market entry. We compare patent assertions against the same biosimilar drugs across three countries. On average nine to twelve times more patents were asserted against biosimilars in the United States than in Canada and the United Kingdom. Biosimilars also enter the Canadian and UK markets more quickly than they do in the United States following regulatory approval. Later market entry is not a problem when the brand name drug company is asserting high quality patents (i.e. patents covering significant advances). Consequently, we drilled down into the U.S. patent portfolio of one major biologic, Abbvie's Humira drug, and found that it was made up of roughly 80% non-patentably distinct (duplicative) patents linked together by terminal disclaimers, which is permitted under United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rules. In contrast, there were far less non-duplicative European patents that covered Humira. Patent thickets can allow brand name drug companies to delay biosimilar entry by relying on the high cost of challenging many duplicative patents instead of the quality of their underlying patents. Accordingly, we suggest several policy interventions that may thin these biologic patent thickets. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9439849 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94398492022-09-06 Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem Goode, Rachel Chao, Bernard J Law Biosci Original Article Our study seeks to determine whether patent thickets covering biologic drugs are responsible for delayed biosimilar market entry. We compare patent assertions against the same biosimilar drugs across three countries. On average nine to twelve times more patents were asserted against biosimilars in the United States than in Canada and the United Kingdom. Biosimilars also enter the Canadian and UK markets more quickly than they do in the United States following regulatory approval. Later market entry is not a problem when the brand name drug company is asserting high quality patents (i.e. patents covering significant advances). Consequently, we drilled down into the U.S. patent portfolio of one major biologic, Abbvie's Humira drug, and found that it was made up of roughly 80% non-patentably distinct (duplicative) patents linked together by terminal disclaimers, which is permitted under United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rules. In contrast, there were far less non-duplicative European patents that covered Humira. Patent thickets can allow brand name drug companies to delay biosimilar entry by relying on the high cost of challenging many duplicative patents instead of the quality of their underlying patents. Accordingly, we suggest several policy interventions that may thin these biologic patent thickets. Oxford University Press 2022-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9439849/ /pubmed/36072417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac022 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Original Article Goode, Rachel Chao, Bernard Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
title | Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
title_full | Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
title_fullStr | Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
title_full_unstemmed | Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
title_short | Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
title_sort | biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an american problem |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac022 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gooderachel biologicalpatentthicketsanddelayedaccesstobiosimilarsanamericanproblem AT chaobernard biologicalpatentthicketsanddelayedaccesstobiosimilarsanamericanproblem |