Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intellectual property policy in the pharmaceutical sciences: The effect of inappropriate patents and market exclusivity extensions on the health care system

  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though patents are effective tools for promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property in the pharmaceutical sciences, there has been growing concern about 2 important ways that patents in this field can have a negative effect on patient care and the practice of medicine. First, inventors can seek and receive patents on pharmaceutical products or research tools that stretch the statutory requirements for patenting. Second, patent holders in the pharmaceutical market can used legal loopholes or aspects of the patent registration system to extend exclusivity for inventions beyond what was anticipated by the Patent Act or subsequent legislation. The monopoly control bestowed by such inappropriate patents or manipulation of the patent system can limit options available to patients, increase the cost of health care delivery, and make cooperative research more difficult. In response, several different government and market-based efforts have emerged to promote more equitable patent policy in health care that encourages dissemination of ideas while still supporting the development of innovative products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Const, Art I, §8, cl 8.

  2. Government Patent Policy Act of 1980, Pub L No. 96-517, 94 Stat 3015 (1980).

  3. Jaffe AB, Lerner J. Innovation and Its Discontents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7552. Cambridge, MA: NBER. February 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Bureau of Economic Research. The NBER US Patent Citations Data File. Available at: http://www.nber.org/patents. Accessed March 15, 2007.

  6. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. University-based science and biotechnology products: defining the boundaries of intellectual property. JAMA 2005;293:850–854.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science. 1998;280:698–701.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Congressional budget Office. Research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ 76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2006.

  9. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. Biomedical patents and the public health: is there a role for eminent domain? JAMA. 2006;295:434–437.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Patent Act 35 USC §101 (2006).

  11. Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 Fed Regist 1092 (2001).

  12. Patent Act 35 USC §101 (2006).

  13. Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (Sup Ct 1980).

  14. Diamond v Diehr, 470 US 175 (Sup Ct 1981).

  15. Allen R, Stabler S, Lindenbaum J, inventots. University Patents Inc., assignee. Assay for sulfhydryl amino acids and methods for detecting and distinguishing cobalamin and folic acid deficiency. US patent 4 940 658. July 10, 1990.

  16. Metabolite Laboratories v Laboratory Corporation of America. 370 F3d 1354 (FCCA 2005)

  17. Laboratory Corporation of America v Metabolite Laboratories. 126 SCt 2921 (2006).

  18. Kesselheim AS, Mello MM. Medical process patents—monopolizing the delivery of health care. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2036–2041.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Baltimore D, Sen R, Sharp P, Singh H, Staudt L, Lebowitz J, Baldwin A, Clerc R, Corcoran L, Baeuerle P, lenardo M, Fan C, Maniatis T, inventors. President & Fellows of Harvard College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, assignees. Nuclear factors associated with transcriptional regulation. US patent 6 410 516. June 25, 2002.

  20. Patent Act 35 USC §103 (2006).

  21. Ault a. Combo pills may help patients—and are sure to help drug firms. The Washington Post. Feb 17, 2004. Health Tab:01.

  22. Patent Act 35 USC §103 (2006).

  23. Federal Trade Commission. To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. October 2003. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2006.

  24. Sakraida v AG Pro Inc, 435 US 273 (Sup Ct 1976).

  25. NIHCM Foundation. Prescription drugs and intellectual property protection. august 2000. Available at: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/nihem-drugs&ipp.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2007.

  26. Schering v Geneva Pharmaceutical. 339 F3d 1373 (FCCA 2003).

  27. Kesselheim AS, Fischer MA, Avorn J. Extensions of intellectual property rights and delayed adoption of generic drugs: effects on Medicaid spending. Health Aff. 2006;25:1637–1647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Federal Trade Commission. Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration. July 2002. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/07/genericdrugstudy.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2006.

  29. Shuchman M. Delaying generic competition—corporate payoffs and the future of Plavix. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1297–1300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Drug Competition Act of 2001 (S 754).

  31. Hale VG, Woo K, Lipton HL. Oxymoron no more: the potential of nonprofit drug companies to deliver on the promise of medicines for the developing world. Health Aff. 2005;24:1057–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kapczynski A, Chaifetz S, Katz Z, Benkler Y. Addressing global health inequities: an open licensing approach for university innovations. Berkeley Technol Law J. 2005;20:1031–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Check E. Universities urged to do more for poor nations. Nature. 2006;444:412–413.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Avorn J. Powerful medicines: the benefits, risks, and costs of prescription drugs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, 02120, Boston, MA

    Aaron S. Kesselheim

Authors
  1. Aaron S. Kesselheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron S. Kesselheim.

Additional information

Published: August 3, 2007

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kesselheim, A.S. Intellectual property policy in the pharmaceutical sciences: The effect of inappropriate patents and market exclusivity extensions on the health care system. AAPS J 9, 33 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj0903033

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj0903033

Keywords

Search

Navigation