skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Earlier this year we wrote about how AbbVie, the pharma company spun out of Abbott Laboratories, had gone to court to stop
the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from releasing clinical trials
information about one of its drugs. Despite what AbbVie claimed, this
was not commercially sensitive in any way, but simply basic data about
safety and efficacy.
On
Techdirt.
A couple of years ago, Techdirt carried an article by Andy Kessler
about the difference between entrepreneurs who create value, and those
who lock it up. The former tend to drive prices down constantly,
innovating all the while in order to make a profit; the latter, by
contrast, typically enjoy monopolies that allow them to push up prices without offering anything more in return.
On
Techdirt.
One technique in the world of pharma that has started appearing here
on Techdirt is "evergreening" -- making small changes to a drug, often
about to come off patent, in order to gain a new patent that extends its
manufacturer's control over it. The advantages for pharma companies
are evident, but what about the public? What economic impact does evergreening have? That's what a fascinating new paper in the open access journal PLoS Medicine seeks to establish:
On
Techdirt.
A couple of weeks ago, we wrote about the growing importance of investor-state dispute resolution
in so-called free trade agreements (FTAs). One of the most troubling
aspects is how potentially it can be used to undo the hard-won gains for
important areas like access to medicines. The US law professor Brook K.
Baker, whose work we discussed last year, has written an excellent exploration of this under-appreciated risk. After an introduction running through the recent wins in the field of access to medicines -- a topic
that we've covered extensively here on Techdirt -- he explains how big
pharma could employ investor-state dispute resolution to thwart these
and similar moves to protect health:
On
Techdirt.
A few weeks back, we wrote about the Indian Supreme Court's rejection of Novartis's attempt to use "evergreening"
to prolong its patent on Gleevec, sold as Glivec in India. That term
refers to the trick of making small changes to a drug, usually one about
to come off patent, in order to gain a new monopoly that extends its
manufacturer's control over a medicine. But how does that work in
practice?
On
Techdirt.
The last time Techdirt wrote about "pay for delay"
deals, whereby a big pharma company essentially buys off manufacturers
of generics so that the former can continue to enjoy monopoly pricing
long after its patents have expired, things didn't look too good. Back
in 2010, the Second Circuit had refused to re-hear a case on the issue
after dismissing a lawsuit arguing these deals were anti-competitive.
But now things seem very different, and not just in the US.
On
Techdirt.
One of the initiatives gaining momentum around the world is open data --
the idea that, for example, non-personal data affecting the public
should be made freely available. That's partly to improve transparency,
so that citizens are more informed about what is happening, and partly
to stimulate new kinds of business that build products and services
based on that data.
On
Open Enterprise blog.
An increasingly problematic aspect of free trade agreements (FTAs) is
the inclusion of investor-state provisions that essentially allow
companies -- typically huge multinationals -- to challenge
the policies of signatory governments directly. The initial impulse
behind these was to offer some protection against the arbitrary
expropriation of foreign investments by less-than-democratic
governments. But now corporations have realised that they can use the
investor-state dispute mechanism to challenge all kinds of legitimate
but inconvenient decisions in any signatory nation. Here's a good
example of how this provision is being invoked to contest a refusal by Canadian courts to grant a patent on a drug, as explained on the Public Citizen site:
On
Techdirt.
One of the striking features of the drug world is how pharma
companies become noticeably more inventive immediately before their
patents are due to run out and their drugs are about to enter the public
domain. That's because they need to find a way to differentiate
themselves from the generic manufacturers that are then able to offer
the same medicines for often vastly lower prices.
On
Techdirt.
As Techdirt has reported over the last year, the Indian government is becoming increasingly keen
on using cheaper, generic versions of important drugs to treat
diseases, rather than paying Western-level prices its people can ill
afford. Intellectual Property Watch reports on another instance of the
Indian authorities easing the way for low-cost versions by striking down a patent granted to Roche for the treatment of Hepatitis C. As the article explains, it's notable for at least two reasons:
On
Techdirt.
Techdirt has been following the important story of the kidney and liver cancer drug marketed under the name Nexavar since March,
when India granted a compulsory license for the first time since
re-instating patents on pharmaceuticals. Naturally, the patent holder,
Bayer, fought back, and appealed against that decision. Now we learn from Intellectual Property Watch that Bayer has lost:
On
Techdirt.
A few years back, Techdirt noted
that India had 16,000 licensed drug manufacturers in the 1990s, and
became a net exporter of pharmaceutical products. Things changed
somewhat when India joined the WTO, which forced it to recognize
pharmaceutical patents, but more recently it has started moving back
towards generics, notably with the compulsory licensing of a kidney and liver cancer drug that was being sold by Bayer in the country for around $70,000 a year.
On
Techdirt.
By their very nature, drug patents can create monopolies that allow
prices to be kept artificially high. In other domains that may be
simply an annoyance or inconvenience, but in the world of medicines, it
can be a matter of life or death for those unable to afford those
inflated prices.
On
Techdirt.