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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of law and the biosciences 2022-07, Vol.9 (2), p.n1-lsac022
Hauptverfasser: Goode, Rachel, Chao, Bernard
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