The dynamics of pharmaceutical patenting in India: Evidence from USPTO data

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 625-642

  Simonetti, Roberto ^a   Archambault, Éric ^b   Côté, Grégoire ^b   Kale, Dinar ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Science Metrix   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING WORLD; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION;

ASIA; EURASIA; INDIA; SOUTH ASIA;

EID: 34548570392     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537320701521382     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. J. O. Lanjouw & I. M. Cockburn, New pills for poor people? Empirical evidence after GATT, World Development, 29(2), 2001, pp. 265-289, p. 268.
2. W. Greene, The emergence of India's pharmaceutical industry and implications for the U.S. generic drug market, Office of EconomicsWorking Papers No. 2007-05-A, U.S. International Trade Commission, May 2007.
3. S. Chaudhuri, The gap between successful innovation and access to its benefits: Indian pharmaceuticals, European Journal of Development Research, 19(1), 2007, pp. 49-65
4. Lanjouw & Cockburn, op. cit., Ref. 1.
5. A. B. Jaffe & M. Trajtemberg, Patents, Citations, and Innovations: AWindow on the Knowledge Economy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2002).
6. F. M. Scherer & S.Weisburst, Pharmaceutical patent protection in Italy, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 24(6), 1995, pp. 1009-1024 [reprinted in F. M. Scherer, Patents: Economics, Policy and Measurement (Aldershot, Edward Elgar, 2005), ch 6].
7. This analysis is formulated in terms of individual consumers while much of the demand for drugs is due to public health systems. Although public health organizations might redistribute wealth, this does not change the results of the model qualitatively: Higher drugs prices and less quantity of drugs produced mean that the health service will be able to buy less drugs for its citizens with a loss of welfare. This is especially true in under-funded health systems in developing countries that are often starved of resources.
8. F. M. Scherer, The political economy of patent policy reform in the United States, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government (M-RCBG) Programs'Working Papers, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2006.
9. Scherer & Weisburst, op. cit., Ref. 6.
10. Ibid.
11. R. Aoki & T. Saiki, Implication of product patents - lessons from Japan, Report for the Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH),World Health Organization, 2005.
12. Greene, op. cit., Ref. 2.
13. S. Chaudhuri, R&D for development for neglected diseases. How can India contribute, Report for the Commission on Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), World Health Organization, 2005, p. 21.
14. Pharmabiz, Indian pharma Inc on the move, Thursday 28 September 2006, based on a KPMG-CII study, at http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/ detnews.asp?articleid=35366§ionid=50 (accessed 12 January 2007).
15. ASSOCHAM,White Paper on Indian pharma industry: Quest for global leadership, in collaboration with Cygnus Research, 14 November 2006, New Delhi.
16. Chaudhuri, op. cit., Ref. 3.
17. Pharmabiz, op. cit., Ref. 14.
18. ASSOCHAM, op. cit., Ref. 14.
19. H. Thorsteinsdóttir, A. S. Daar, P. A. Singer, É. Archambault & S. Arunachalam, Health biotechnology publishing takes-off in developing countries, International Journal of Biotechnology, 8(1-2), 2006, pp. 23-42.
20. U. Quach, H. Thorsteinsdóttir, J. Renihan, A. Bhatt, Z. Costa von Aesch, P. A. Singer & A. S. Daar, Biotechnology patenting takes off in developing countries, International Journal of Biotechnology, 8(1-2), 2006, pp. 43-59.
21. Full explanatory notes are available at the URL: http://www.uspto.gov/go/ taf/clsstca/explan.htm (accessed 4 February 2007).
22. It is also possible to attribute patents to a country in two other ways. One is to assign a patent to a country when any of the inventors listed on the patent are resident in a country. This, however, generates doublecounting and creates problems with the interpretation of the specialization indices used in the analysis. The other way is to assign a fraction of a patent to the country of each inventor.
23. The definition of pharmaceutical patents used by the PTMB falls between that used by Scherer and Weisburst, who only used class 514, and the USPC-SIC concordance, which includes other classes in addition to 424 and 514.
24. Utility patents are the general category of patents in the USA and account for most US patents. Other types of patents include design, plant and reissued patents.A utility patent is a patent issued for inventions that perform useful functions.
25. Thorsteinsdóttir et al., op. cit., Ref. 19.
26. Quach et al., op. cit., Ref. 20.
27. For an in-depth discussion of the index, see D. Archibugi & M. Pianta, The Technological Specialization of Advanced Countries (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, 1992)
28. J. Cantwell, Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1989).
29. Scherer & Weisburst, op. cit., Ref. 6.
30. For a discussion of this measurement issue, see Archibugi & Pianta, op. cit., Ref. 27.
31. Quach et al., op. cit., Ref. 20.
32. F. M. Scherer, Patents: Economics, Policy and Measurement (Aldershot, Elgar, 2005).
33. Jaffe & Trajtemberg, op. cit., Ref. 5.
34. For an early application of the indicator of technological opportunities based the percentage of patents in fast-growing fields, see V. Meliciani & R. Simonetti, Specialization in areas of strong technological opportunity and economic growth, in: G. Eliasson, C. Green & C. McCann (Eds), Microfoundations of Economic Growth: A Schumpeterian Perspective (Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press, 1998).
35. R. Simonetti, Technological change, in: S. Himmelweit, R. Simonetti & A. Trigg (Eds) Microeconomics: Neoclassical and Institutional Perspectives (London, Thomson Learning, 2001).
36. BCG, Harnessing the power of India: Rising to the productivity challenge in biopharma R&D, BCG Focus, The Boston Consulting Group, May 2006.