Patent Thickets and Product Hops: Challenges and Opportunities for Legislative Reform.

IF 1.6 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
William B Feldman
{"title":"Patent Thickets and Product Hops: Challenges and Opportunities for Legislative Reform.","authors":"William B Feldman","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two key strategies that brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers employ to limit generic competition are patent thickets and product hops. The former strategy entails obtaining numerous patents on peripheral features of products (not just the active ingredients), and the latter involves shifting active ingredients into reformulations with new patent protection that can extend periods of market exclusivity. These strategies have become particularly problematic for drug-device combinations like inhalers and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, which contain pharmaceutical compounds that are sold together with their delivery devices. The Senate Judiciary Committee moved three bipartisan bills out of committee during the last legislative session aimed at facilitating more timely generic competition. Although these bills offer a valuable step forward, more is needed to limit the sort of patent gamesmanship that has become pervasive in the US pharmaceutical industry. Such reforms should include routine reexamination by the US Patent and Trademark Office of patents submitted for listing with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a greater role for the FDA in reviewing such listings, limits on the number of patents that brand-name firms can assert when suing for infringement following patent challenges, stronger incentives for patent challenges, and more flexibility for the FDA to approve complex generic drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.54","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two key strategies that brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers employ to limit generic competition are patent thickets and product hops. The former strategy entails obtaining numerous patents on peripheral features of products (not just the active ingredients), and the latter involves shifting active ingredients into reformulations with new patent protection that can extend periods of market exclusivity. These strategies have become particularly problematic for drug-device combinations like inhalers and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, which contain pharmaceutical compounds that are sold together with their delivery devices. The Senate Judiciary Committee moved three bipartisan bills out of committee during the last legislative session aimed at facilitating more timely generic competition. Although these bills offer a valuable step forward, more is needed to limit the sort of patent gamesmanship that has become pervasive in the US pharmaceutical industry. Such reforms should include routine reexamination by the US Patent and Trademark Office of patents submitted for listing with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a greater role for the FDA in reviewing such listings, limits on the number of patents that brand-name firms can assert when suing for infringement following patent challenges, stronger incentives for patent challenges, and more flexibility for the FDA to approve complex generic drugs.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信