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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goode, Rachel, Chao, Bernard
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