Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem
Abstract 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 biosimi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of law and the biosciences 2022-07, Vol.9 (2), p.n1-lsac022 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | lsac022 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | n1 |
container_title | Journal of law and the biosciences |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Goode, Rachel Chao, Bernard |
description | Abstract
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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jlb/lsac022 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9439849</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A766804453</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/jlb/lsac022</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A766804453</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-73feed8fe1f58fb2bc1043336ac5bcd00720c314b9d226b9c254cadf1626d0243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kVtLHEEQhZsQiaL75B9oEERIVvs20zMvgXWJibAggj43fanZbe2ZnnTPCv77tOwi-pKnKqivTh3qIHRKySUlLb96CuYqZG0JY1_QESMVn7eS0q8f-kM0y_mJEEJZJSWX39Ahr4lkgsojdH_tY4hrb3XAo55gmPC08fYZpoz14LCDoF_BYW0t5IyniI2P2fc-6JR_FAQvekhlfcBjiiZAf4IOOh0yzPb1GD3e_HpY_pmv7n7fLheruS2Hp7nkHYBrOqBd1XSGGUuJ4JzX2lbGOlIMEsupMK1jrDatZZWw2nW0ZrUjTPBj9HOnO25ND84W60kHNSbf6_Sqovbq82TwG7WOL6oVvG1EWwQu9gIp_t1CnlTvs4UQ9ABxmxUrv2tE-bIs6NkOXesAyg9dLIr2DVcLWdcNEaLihfq-o2yKOSfo3s1Qot7SUiUttU-r0Oc7Om7H_4L_AA0zlKM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2711841097</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Goode, Rachel ; Chao, Bernard</creator><creatorcontrib>Goode, Rachel ; Chao, Bernard</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2053-9711</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2053-9711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsac022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36072417</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Access control ; Biosimilar pharmaceuticals ; Comparative analysis ; Generic drugs ; Intellectual property ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Original ; Patent licenses</subject><ispartof>Journal of law and the biosciences, 2022-07, Vol.9 (2), p.n1-lsac022</ispartof><rights>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. 2022</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Oxford University Press</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-73feed8fe1f58fb2bc1043336ac5bcd00720c314b9d226b9c254cadf1626d0243</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439849/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439849/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,1599,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goode, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chao, Bernard</creatorcontrib><title>Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem</title><title>Journal of law and the biosciences</title><description>Abstract
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.</description><subject>Access control</subject><subject>Biosimilar pharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Generic drugs</subject><subject>Intellectual property</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Patent licenses</subject><issn>2053-9711</issn><issn>2053-9711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kVtLHEEQhZsQiaL75B9oEERIVvs20zMvgXWJibAggj43fanZbe2ZnnTPCv77tOwi-pKnKqivTh3qIHRKySUlLb96CuYqZG0JY1_QESMVn7eS0q8f-kM0y_mJEEJZJSWX39Ahr4lkgsojdH_tY4hrb3XAo55gmPC08fYZpoz14LCDoF_BYW0t5IyniI2P2fc-6JR_FAQvekhlfcBjiiZAf4IOOh0yzPb1GD3e_HpY_pmv7n7fLheruS2Hp7nkHYBrOqBd1XSGGUuJ4JzX2lbGOlIMEsupMK1jrDatZZWw2nW0ZrUjTPBj9HOnO25ND84W60kHNSbf6_Sqovbq82TwG7WOL6oVvG1EWwQu9gIp_t1CnlTvs4UQ9ABxmxUrv2tE-bIs6NkOXesAyg9dLIr2DVcLWdcNEaLihfq-o2yKOSfo3s1Qot7SUiUttU-r0Oc7Om7H_4L_AA0zlKM</recordid><startdate>20220701</startdate><enddate>20220701</enddate><creator>Goode, Rachel</creator><creator>Chao, Bernard</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220701</creationdate><title>Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem</title><author>Goode, Rachel ; Chao, Bernard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-73feed8fe1f58fb2bc1043336ac5bcd00720c314b9d226b9c254cadf1626d0243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Access control</topic><topic>Biosimilar pharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Generic drugs</topic><topic>Intellectual property</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Patent licenses</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goode, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chao, Bernard</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of law and the biosciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goode, Rachel</au><au>Chao, Bernard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem</atitle><jtitle>Journal of law and the biosciences</jtitle><date>2022-07-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>n1</spage><epage>lsac022</epage><pages>n1-lsac022</pages><issn>2053-9711</issn><eissn>2053-9711</eissn><abstract>Abstract
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.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>36072417</pmid><doi>10.1093/jlb/lsac022</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2053-9711 |
ispartof | Journal of law and the biosciences, 2022-07, Vol.9 (2), p.n1-lsac022 |
issn | 2053-9711 2053-9711 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9439849 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; PubMed Central |
subjects | Access control Biosimilar pharmaceuticals Comparative analysis Generic drugs Intellectual property Laws, regulations and rules Original Patent licenses |
title | Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T18%3A05%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biological%20patent%20thickets%20and%20delayed%20access%20to%20biosimilars,%20an%20American%20problem&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20law%20and%20the%20biosciences&rft.au=Goode,%20Rachel&rft.date=2022-07-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=n1&rft.epage=lsac022&rft.pages=n1-lsac022&rft.issn=2053-9711&rft.eissn=2053-9711&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jlb/lsac022&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA766804453%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2711841097&rft_id=info:pmid/36072417&rft_galeid=A766804453&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jlb/lsac022&rfr_iscdi=true |