Patents and Regulatory Exclusivity

The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Eisenberg, Rebecca S ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biosimilars; Drug exclusivity; Drug policy; Hatch waxman act; Patent challenges; Patents; Regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85066546525     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199742998.013.0007     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Agranat, I., and S.R. Wainschtein. 2010. "The Strategy of Enantiomer Patents of Drugs." Drug Discovery Today 15: 163-170.
2. Bessen, J., and Meurer, M.J. 2008. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats & Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Burk, D.L., and M.A. Lemley. 2009. The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J.P. Walsh. 2000. Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not). NBER Working Paper 7552. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
5. Congressional Budget Office. 1998. How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs Has Affected Prices in the Pharmaceutical Industry. CBO Report. Washington, DC: CBO.
6. Crane, D.A. 2002. "Exit Payments in Settlement of Patent Infringement Lawsuits: Antitrust Rules and Economic Applications." Florida Law Review 54: 747-798.
7. Crane, D.A. 2004. "Ease Over Accuracy in Assessing Patent Settlements." Minnesota Law Review 88: 698-711.
8. Curtiss, F.R. 2008. "Perspectives on the 'Generic Cliff': Pushing and Falling." Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 14: 318-321.
9. Dinh, T.Q. 2007. "Potential Pathways for Abbreviated Approval of Generic Biologics Under Existing Law and Proposed Reforms in the Law." Food and Drug Law Journal 62: 77-137.
10. Dinwoodie, G.B., and R.C. Dreyfuss. 2007. "Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement." Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 13: 445-456.
11. Eisenberg, R.S. 2007. "The Role of the FDA in Innovation Policy." Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 13: 345-388.
12. Eisenberg, R.S. 2008. "Pharma's Nononobvious Problem." Lewis and Clark Law Review 12: 375-430.
13. Engelberg, A.B. 1999. "Special Patent Provisions for Pharmaceuticals: Have They Outlived Their Usefulness? A Political, Legislative and Legal History of U.S. Law and Observations for the Future." IDEA: Journal of Law and Technology 39(3): 389-428.
14. Engelberg, A.B., A.S. Kesselheim, and J. Avorn. 2009. "Balancing Innovation, Access and Profits: Market Exclusivity for Biologics." New England Journal of Medicine 361: 1917-1919.
15. Federal Trade Commission. 2002. Generic Entry Prior to Patent Expiration: An FTC Study. Washington, DC: FTC.
16. Federal Trade Commission. 2009a. Authorized Generics: An Interim Report. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/06/P062105authorizedgenericsreport.pdf (accessed November 2011).
17. Federal Trade Commission. 2009b. Emerging Health Care Issues: Follow-on Biologic Drug Competition. Available at http://www.biosimilars.com/FTC_FOBS_biosimilars_report.pdf (accessed November 2011).
18. Federal Trade Commission. 2010. Pay-for-Delay: How Drug Company Pay-Offs Cost Consumers Billions. Washington, DC: FTC. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/01/100112payfordelayrpt.pdf (accessed November 2011).
19. Fellmeth, A.X. 2004. "Secrecy, Monopoly, and Access to Pharmaceuticals in International Trade Law: Protection of Marketing Approval Data Under the TRIPs Agreement." Harvard International Law Journal 45: 443-502.
20. Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Annex 1C: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (TRIPS Agreement). 1994. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf (accessed November 2011).
21. Food and Drug Administration. 2003a. FDA Center for Drug Evaluation: Guidance for Industry 180-Day Exclusivity When Multiple ANDAs Are Submitted on the Same Day. Washington, DC: FDA.
22. Food and Drug Administration. 2003b. Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug: Patent Submission and Listing Requirements and Application of 30-Month Stays on Approval of Abbreviated New Drug Applications Certifying That a Patent Claiming a Drug Is Invalid or Will Not Be Infringed; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 36675 (June 18, 2003).
23. Food and Drug Administration. 2006. From Test Tube to Patient: Protecting America's Health Through Human Drugs, 4th ed. FDA 06-1524G. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/(accessed December 2011).
24. Food and Drug Administration. 2007. 2007 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Update. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM121704.pdf (accessed November 2011).
25. Furrow, M.E. 2008. "Pharmaceutical Patent Life-Cycle Management after KSR v Teleflex." Food and Drug Law Journal 63: 275-320.
26. Grabowski, H.G. 2008. "Follow-on Biologics: Data Exclusivity and the Balance Between Innovation and Competition." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 7: 479-488.
27. Grabowski, H.G., and M. Kyle. 2007. "Generic Competition and Market Exclusivity Periods in Pharmaceuticals." Managerial and Decision Economics 28: 491-502.
28. Grabowski, H.G., and J.M. Vernon. 1979. "Substitution Laws and Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry." Law and Contemporary Problems 43: 43-66.
29. Greenwood, J. 2010. "State of the Industry Address from 2010 BIO International Convention." Available at http://biotech-now.org/2010/05/10/stateindustry-address-from-2010-bio-international-convention (accessed November 2011).
30. Hemphill, C.S. 2009. "An Aggregate Approach to Antitrust: Using New Data and Rulemaking to Preserve Drug Competition." Columbia Law Review 109: 629-688.
31. Higgins, M.J., and S.J.H. Graham. 2009. "Balancing Innovation and Access: Patent Challenges Tip the Scales." Science 326: 370-371.
32. Hovenkamp, H. 2004. "Sensible Antitrust Rules for Pharmaceutical Competition." University of San Francisco Law Review 39: 11-32.
33. Hovenkamp, H., M. Janis, and M.A. Lemley. 2003. "Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes." Minnesota Law Review 87: 1719-1766.
34. Hovenkamp, H., M.D. Janis, and M.A. Lemley. 2004. "Balancing Ease and Accuracy in Assessing Pharmaceutical Exclusion Payments." Minnesota Law Review 88: 712-722.
35. Junod, V. 2004. "Drug Marketing Exclusivity Under United States and European Union Law." Food and Drug Law Journal 59: 479-518.
36. Kahin, B. 2007. "Patents and Diversity in Innovation." Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 13: 389-399.
37. Landes, W.M., and R.A. Posner. 2004. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Law." Washington DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. Available at http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040608_Landes.pdf (accessed November 2011).
38. Leffler, K., and C. Leffler. 2004. "Efficiency Trade-Offs in Patent Litigation Settlements: Analysis Gone Astray?" University of San Francisco Law Review 39: 33-54.
39. Lou, K., and M. deRond. 2006. "The 'Not Invented Here' Myth." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5: 451-452.
40. Levin, R.C., A.K. Klevorick, R.R. Nelson, and S.G. Winter. 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3: 783-820.
41. Mahecha, L.A. 2006. "Rx-to-OTC Switches: Trends and Factors Underlying Success." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5: 380-386. Available at http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n5/pdf/nrd2028.pdf (accessed November 2011).
42. Mayhew, S. 2010. "Trends in Discovery Externalization." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 9: 183.
43. Mossinghoff, G.J. 1999. "Overview of the Hatch-Waxman Act and its Impact on the Drug Development Process." Food and Drug Law Journal 54: 187-194.
44. O'Rourke, M.A., and J.F. Brodley. 2003. "An Incentives Approach to Patent Settlements: A Commentary on Hovenkamp, Janis and Lemley." Minnesota Law Review 87: 1767-1788.
45. Perri, A.J. III, and S. Hsu. 2003. "A Review of Thalidomide's History and Current Dermatological Applications." Dermatology Online Journal 9: 5. Available at http://dermatology.cdlib.org/93/reviews/thalidomide/hsu.html (accessed November 2011).
46. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. 2007. Drug Discovery and Development, Understanding the R&D Process. Available at http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/159/rd_brochure_022307.pdf (accessed December 2011.
47. Pulsinelli, G.A. 1999. "The Orphan Drug Act: What's Right With It." Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 15: 299-346.
48. Reichman, J.H. 2009. "Rethinking the Role of Clinical Trial Data in International Intellectual Property Law: The Case for a Public Goods Approach." Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 13: 1-68.
49. Roin, B. 2009. "Unpatentable Drugs and the Standards of Patentability." Texas Law Review 87: 503-570.
50. Schacht, W.H., and J.R. Thomas. 2009. Follow-On Biologics: Intellectual Property and Innovation Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available at http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/crs/RL33901_090320.pdf (accessed November 2011).
51. Schildkraut, M.G. 2004. "Patent-Splitting Settlements and the Reverse Payment Fallacy" Antitrust Law Journal 71: 1033-1068.
52. Steinbrook, R. 2002. "Testing Medications in Children." New England Journal of Medicine 347: 1462-1470.
53. Thomas, J.R. 2006. Authorized Generic Pharmaceuticals: Effects on Innovation. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available at http://www.orangebookblog.com/files/thomas_j.,%20Authorized%20Generics.pdf (accessed November 2011).
54. Thomas, J.R. 2010. "Toward a Theory of Marketing Exclusivities." Working paper on file with the author.
55. Weissman, R. 1996. "A Long, Strange TRIPS: The Pharmaceutical Industry Drive to Harmonize Global Intellectual Property Rules, and the Remaining WTO Legal Alternatives Available to Third World Countries." University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 17: 1069-1126.
56. Wheadon, D.E. 2010 (February 18). "Letter to the Editor." New England Journal of Medicine 362: 661-662.