Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Healthcare innovation and patent law’s ‘pharmaceutical privilege’: is there a pharmaceutical privilege? And if so, should we remove it?

  • Graham Dutfield (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

This article reviews current trends in patent claims regarding personalised, stratified and precision medicine. These trends are not particularly well understood by policymakers, even less by the public, and are quite recent. Consequently, their implications for the public interest have hardly been thought out. Some see personalised and other secondary drug patent claims as promoting better targeted treatment. Others are inclined to see them as \manifestations of ‘evergreening’ whereby companies are, in some cases quite cynically, trying to extend market monopolies in old products or creating new monopolies based on supposedly improved versions of such earlier drugs. The article claims that the relaxation of ‘novelty’ is a privilege unavailable to inventions in other fields and that on balance the patent system does privilege this industry and that no adequate case has yet been made thus far to prove the public benefits overall.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: Graham Dutfield, School of Law, University of Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: g.m.dutfield@leeds.ac.uk
References
Hide All
Allison M. (2008), ‘Is personalized medicine finally arriving?’, Nature Biotechnology, 26(5): 509517.
Amin T. and Kesselheim A. S. (2012), ‘Secondary patenting of branded pharmaceuticals: a case study of how patents on two HIV drugs could be extended for decades’, Health Affairs, 31(10): 22862294.
Angell M. (2004), The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, New York: Random House.
Bostyn S. J. R. (2016a), ‘Personalised medicine, medical indication patents and patent infringement: Emergency treatment required’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2: 151200.
Bostyn S. J. R. (2016b), ‘Medical treatment methods, medical indication claims and patentability: A quest into the rationale of the exclusion and patentability in the context of the future of personalised medicine’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3: 203230.
Cragg G. M., Grothaus P. G. and Newman D. J. (2014), ‘New horizons for old drugs and drug leads’, Journal of Natural Products, 77(3): 703723.
Edwards A. M., Isserlin R., Bader G. D., Frye S. V., Willson T. M. and Yu F. H. (2011), ‘Too many roads not taken’, Nature, 470: 163165.
Elenco E., Underwood L. and Zohar D. (2015), ‘Defining digital medicine’, Nature Biotechnology, 33(5): 460461.
Gupta H., Kumar S., Roy S. K. and Gaud R. S. (2010), ‘Patent protection strategies’, Journal of Pharmacy and BioAllied Sciences, 2(1): 27.
Joyner M. J. and Paneth N. (2015), ‘Seven questions for personalized medicine’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 314(10): 9991000.
Kapczynski A., Park C. and Sampat B. (2012), ‘Polymorphs and prodrugs and salts (oh my!): An empirical analysis of “secondary” pharmaceutical patents’, PLoS One, 7(12): e49470.
Manners S. (2006), Super Pills: The Prescription Drugs We Love to Take, Vancouver, BC: Raincoast Books.
Moir H. V. J. (2016), ‘Exploring evergreening: Insights from two medicines’, The Australian Economic Review, 49(4): 413431.
Mullard A. (2012), ‘Drug repurposing programmes get lift off’, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 11: 12.
Parker S. and Hall B. (2014), ‘Patenting personalized medicines in the UK, Europe and USA’, Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst, 3(2): 163169.
Peck R.W. (2016), ‘The right dose for every patient’, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 15: 145146.
Schork N. (2015), ‘Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials’, Nature, 520: 609611.
Sterckx S. and Cockbain J. (2012), Exclusions From Patentability: How Far has the European Patent Office Eroded Boundaries? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vernaz N., Haller G., Girardin F., Huttner B., Combescure C., Dayer P., Muscionico D., Salomon J.L., Bonnabry P. (2013), ‘Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: A cost-evaluation analysis’, PLoS Medicine, 10(6): e1001460.
Warren-Jones A. (2016), ‘Regulatory theory: Commercially sustainable markets rely upon satisfying the public interest in obtaining credible goods’, Health Economics, Policy and Law (this issue).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Health Economics, Policy and Law
  • ISSN: 1744-1331
  • EISSN: 1744-134X
  • URL: /core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 105 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 820 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 18th April 2017 - 17th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.