Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition.

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

Inequitable Conduct and Invalidation of Patents Related to Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products.

This study examines the frequency of drug patent invalidations based on inequitable conduct.

Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists.

Importance: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2005. Demand for these drugs has increased rapidly in recent years, as indications have expanded, but they remain expensive. Objective: To analyze how manufacturers of brand-name GLP-1 receptor agonists have used the patent and regulatory systems to extend periods of market exclusivity. Evidence Review: The annual US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations was used to identify GLP-1 receptor agonists approved from 2005 to 2021 and to record patents and nonpatent statutory exclusivities listed for each product. Google Patents was used to extract additional data on patents, including whether each was obtained on the delivery device or another aspect of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection from generic competition, defined as the time elapsed from FDA approval until expiration of the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity. Findings: On the 10 GLP-1 receptor agonists included in the cohort, drug manufacturers listed with the FDA a median of 19.5 patents (IQR, 9.0-25.8) per product, including a median of 17 patents (IQR, 8.3-22.8) filed before FDA approval and 1.5 (IQR, 0-2.8) filed after FDA approval. Fifty-four percent of all patents listed on GLP-1 receptor agonists were on the delivery devices rather than active ingredients. Manufacturers augmented patent protection with a median of 2 regulatory exclusivities (IQR, 0-3) obtained at approval and 1 (IQR, 0.3-4.3) added after approval. The median total duration of expected protection after FDA approval, when accounting for both preapproval and postapproval patents and regulatory exclusivities, was 18.3 years (IQR, 16.0-19.4). No generic firm has successfully challenged patents on GLP-1 receptor agonists to gain FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Patent and regulatory reform is needed to ensure timely generic entry of GLP-1 receptor agonists to the market.

Broad Patent Claims Come Before the Supreme Court in Amgen v Sanofi.

This Viewpoint discusses a current Supreme Court lawsuit, Amgen v Sanofi, involving Amgen's broad patents on PCSK9 that could effectively prevent other manufacturers from producing similar or even clinically superior antibodies, with important negative consequences for patients.

Manufacturer Revenue on Inhalers After Expiration of Primary Patents, 2000-2021.

This study quantifies the revenue earned on all brand-name inhalers approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2021 and compared earnings before and after expiration of primary patents on these products.

The CRISPR Patent Ruling and Implications for Medicine.

This Viewpoint discusses the CRISPR patent ruling, an ongoing patent dispute, and the implications for research and medical innovation.

Recent Patent Reform Bills and Their Implications for Prescription Drugs.

This Viewpoint discusses 3 bills introduced recently in Congress that focus on patent eligibility, fraud, and quality and that have major implications for clinical medicine and pharmaceutical development.

International Tale on Gene Patents - between Medical and Legal Uncertainties / Cuento internacional sobre patentes genéticas: entre la incertidumbre médica y jurídica

This work is inspired by the international litigation chronicle of Myriad Genetics that remains of topical importance in the judicial and academic discourse regardless of the time that passed since. It discusses approaches of various jurisdictions to the problem of gene patenting as well as patenting of geneticdiagnostic testing. The article takes under scrutiny the judgments rendered in the U.S., Australia as well as the decisions by the European Patent Office and placesthem into interdisciplinary background of genetic science. The issue is significant, both theoretically and practically. Notwithstanding the expiration of patents that constituted the subject matter of the Myriad’s various lawsuits, the problem still remains currently relevant. Firstly, because the judgments in individual cases did not answer all the questions, but – in some way – only prepared a path for future decisions. Secondly, it is on account of new scientific breakthroughs in the area of human genetics. Consequently, the domain of genetic diagnostics is under continuous development and in the future may continue to reveal new scientific discoveries and (possibly) inventions. The lack of uniform and transparent rules in this field, and well-defined boundaries for potential monopolies constantly brings not only uncertainty for medical practitioners and scientists, but also real disadvantagesfor the patients. (AU)

Esta obra se inspira en la crónica del litigio internacional de Myriad Genetics, que sigue siendo de actualidad en el discurso judicial y académico a pesar del tiempotranscurrido desde entonces. En él se examinan los enfoques de diversas jurisdicciones sobre el problema de las patentes de genes, así como de las patentes de pruebas de diagnóstico genético. El artículo examina las sentencias dictadas en Estados Unidos y Australia, así como las decisiones de la Oficina Europea de Patentes, y las sitúa en el contexto interdisciplinario de la ciencia genética. La cuestión es importante, tanto desde el punto de vista teórico como práctico. A pesar de la expiración de las patentes que constituyeron el objeto de los diversos pleitos de Myriad, el problema siguesiendo de actualidad. En primer lugar, porque las sentencias dictadas en los casos individuales no respondieron a todas las preguntas, sino que –en cierto modo– sólo prepararon el camino para futuras decisiones. En segundo lugar, debido a los nuevosavances científicos en el ámbito de la genética humana. En consecuencia, el ámbito del diagnóstico genético está en continuo desarrollo y en el futuro puede seguirrevelando nuevos descubrimientos científicos y (posiblemente) invenciones. La falta de normas uniformes y transparentes en este ámbito y de límites bien definidos para los monopolios potenciales no sólo genera constantemente incertidumbre para losmédicos y científicos, sino también desventajas reales para los pacientes. (AU)