A Drug Company Made $114 Billion Gaming America's Patent System (msn.com) 92
The New York Times looks at the AbbVie's anti-inflammatory drug Humira and their "savvy but legal exploitation of the U.S. patent system." Though AbbVie's patent was supposed to expire in 2016, since then it's maintained a monopoly that generated $114 billion in revenue by using "a formidable wall of intellectual property protection and suing would-be competitors before settling with them to delay their product launches until this year."
AbbVie did not invent these patent-prolonging strategies; companies like Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca have deployed similar tactics to maximize profits on drugs for the treatment of cancer, anxiety and heartburn. But AbbVie's success with Humira stands out even in an industry adept at manipulating the U.S. intellectual-property regime.... AbbVie and its affiliates have applied for 311 patents, of which 165 have been granted, related to Humira, according to the Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge, which tracks drug patents. A vast majority were filed after Humira was on the market.
Some of Humira's patents covered innovations that benefited patients, like a formulation of the drug that reduced the pain from injections. But many of them simply elaborated on previous patents. For example, an early Humira patent, which expired in 2016, claimed that the drug could treat a condition known as ankylosing spondylitis, a type of arthritis that causes inflammation in the joints, among other diseases. In 2014, AbbVie applied for another patent for a method of treating ankylosing spondylitis with a specific dosing of 40 milligrams of Humira. The application was approved, adding 11 years of patent protection beyond 2016.
AbbVie has been aggressive about suing rivals that have tried to introduce biosimilar versions of Humira. In 2016, with Amgen's copycat product on the verge of winning regulatory approval, AbbVie sued Amgen, alleging that it was violating 10 of its patents. Amgen argued that most of AbbVie's patents were invalid, but the two sides reached a settlement in which Amgen agreed not to begin selling its drug until 2023.
Over the next five years, AbbVie reached similar settlements with nine other manufacturers seeking to launch their own versions of Humira. All of them agreed to delay their market entry until 2023.
A drug pricing expert at Washington University in St. Louis tells the New York Times that AbbVie and its strategy with Humira "showed other companies what it was possible to do."
But the article concludes that last year such tactics "became a rallying cry" for U.S. lawmakers "as they successfully pushed for Medicare to have greater control over the price of widely used drugs that, like Humira, have been on the market for many years but still lack competition."
Some of Humira's patents covered innovations that benefited patients, like a formulation of the drug that reduced the pain from injections. But many of them simply elaborated on previous patents. For example, an early Humira patent, which expired in 2016, claimed that the drug could treat a condition known as ankylosing spondylitis, a type of arthritis that causes inflammation in the joints, among other diseases. In 2014, AbbVie applied for another patent for a method of treating ankylosing spondylitis with a specific dosing of 40 milligrams of Humira. The application was approved, adding 11 years of patent protection beyond 2016.
AbbVie has been aggressive about suing rivals that have tried to introduce biosimilar versions of Humira. In 2016, with Amgen's copycat product on the verge of winning regulatory approval, AbbVie sued Amgen, alleging that it was violating 10 of its patents. Amgen argued that most of AbbVie's patents were invalid, but the two sides reached a settlement in which Amgen agreed not to begin selling its drug until 2023.
Over the next five years, AbbVie reached similar settlements with nine other manufacturers seeking to launch their own versions of Humira. All of them agreed to delay their market entry until 2023.
A drug pricing expert at Washington University in St. Louis tells the New York Times that AbbVie and its strategy with Humira "showed other companies what it was possible to do."
But the article concludes that last year such tactics "became a rallying cry" for U.S. lawmakers "as they successfully pushed for Medicare to have greater control over the price of widely used drugs that, like Humira, have been on the market for many years but still lack competition."
These tactics are well-known in the industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 1: Brand company blitzes the patent office with related applications to a blockbuster drug, creating a portfolio of later-expiring patents to cover obvious and unavoidable variations (dosage, delivery method, etc) on a drug. This is called "evergreening" the patent.
Step 2: Generic companies attempt to create products nearly identical to an expiring patent.
Step 3: Brand company sues generic companies, arguing infringement. Generic companies counterclaim arguing noninfringement and invalidity of the patents.
Step 4: Brand and generic companies test each other for a couple years in litigation while the FDA review and related testing occurs on generic product.
Step 5: As generic product is nearing approval and release, brand company offers generic a deal to settle the litigation: Stay off the market for X years, and we will give you (a) an upfront payment, (b) status as an "authorized" generic, or both. The "authorized" generic simply meant that instead of paying market prices for the drug, a consumer would pay the brand's artificial floor even though the brand has no claim to the generic, expired-patent drug.
Step 6: Brand repeats process for every new generic entrant.
It was and still is amazing to me that the DOJ does not prosecute what is clearly this anti-competitive, monopolistic practice.
Re:These tactics are well-known in the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Working as intended by the people running the show. Notice how it doesn't matter which corrupt setup of assholes is in charge, none of the real issues ever get looked at or worked on. Both parties just sit there pandering to their bases with empty promises so you vote for them, all the while do exactly what the donor class tells them to do.
So yeah, working precisely how the people in charge want it to work.
But yeah, your vote REALLY matters.
Re:These tactics are well-known in the industry (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:These tactics are well-known in the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
What does $114 billion in average Americans' blood, sweat and tears look like? That's the true cost even delaying generics by just a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem more familiar with this area then anyone else I've run across. So ill ask you. Do you a see a patent office side solution to this problem? or is it solely legal?
Re: (Score:3)
The USPTO is overworked and the brands exploit that to wear down examiners with repeated office actions until they succeed, but even hiring more examiners wouldn't solve the immense funding imbalance. Brands will always be able to overwhelm the USPTO.
The closest I can think of is a punitive rule against litigating expired patents, but that may also kill the good faith innovation alongside the bad faith "innov
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot Step 7: PROFIT (mostly for the lawyers on all sides).
Re: (Score:2)
And the key word here is LAWYERS.
Not unlike the screwed up software industry, until the lawyers are held directly accountable for, what to me, is and obvious lack of integrity and ethics will this stop.
The "creative" thinking that goes into cooking up these methods are what lawyers get paid for.
Cut off that money and. It. Will. Stop.
Now...
All you kids! Get offa my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but EULA.
Whatever goes wrong, no matter how badly they screwed up, no liability.
You heard the joke about two lawyers making good livings in the town that was too small to support one lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing will change (Score:2)
Until those in power are changed, ...and the system to change them out is rigged.
created by others, extorted by industry (Score:3)
Re: created by others, extorted by industry (Score:5, Insightful)
They bought it - paid money for it - that entitles them to protect the patents they bought. The schools were happy to sell the research (I assume), because they could have released it into the public domain or only granted the right manufacture the compound under license to keep costs to the patient down, but instead they sold it off for a quick buck.
Re: (Score:3)
The research was paid for by students, I hear universities are not cheap, did the students get their cut of the profits, I bet they didn't. Did they get a say in what happened to the research they created, I bet they didn't. If it was a publicly funded university did the people who funded the university get a say, I bet they didn't.
The patent system is just a way of middle men to make money, while the creators and public get screwed. Sure you might get lucky but you might also win the lottery both are very
Re: (Score:2)
The patent system is just a way of middle men to make money, while the creators and public get screwed.
Be careful with such absolute statements. The patent system is not 100% abused. Some patents are completely legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
The research was paid for by taxpayers per usual. AbbVie got it basically for free. I'm sure they paid some pittance just to be able to say they bought it, but they no doubt paid a fraction of the actual cost.
Rallying cry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh noes, not a rattling sabre from do-nothing US lawmakers. What ever shall we do? I know, continue to pass along bribes to politicians by way of the lobbying process so that they continue to wink at the problem while decrying that it's a problem. Win win....unless you're a consumer of these drugs or the ratepayer of insurance companies that are also feeding off the process. Everyone dipping their beeks (into your wallet).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes, not a rattling sabre from do-nothing US lawmakers. What ever shall we do? I know, continue to pass along bribes to politicians by way of the lobbying process so that they continue to wink at the problem while decrying that it's a problem. Win win....unless you're a consumer of these drugs or the ratepayer of insurance companies that are also feeding off the process. Everyone dipping their beeks (into your wallet).
Yes, those same useless legislators (and their ilk) that parrot Taylor Swift lyrics in the questioning of Ticketmaster
How can you expect a serious effort to correct that issue (and many others...except for their own pay rises) from people that appear to deal with it so frivolously?
Re:Rallying cry... (Score:5, Funny)
That's it! I've had enough! Next election, I vote for the other half of The Party, that's gonna change things!
Re: (Score:2)
That's it! I've had enough! Next election, I vote for the other half of The Party, that's gonna change things!
Why not, I'm betting the gang from The Party [wikipedia.org] would do a better job than the current crop we're dealing with and when you look at the member's socials they seem to be decent people too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't Texas and California paradises for the party faithful yet? Both states have supermajorities in the State houses with a governor of the same stripe. So clearly those places should be a version of paradise in the eyes of their respective party voters, right?
Instead, you hear the politicians in both states blaming the other side when the other side has almost zero ability to influence anything inside the state(s) in question.
You'd of thought California would of figured out their gun problems, but th
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you replied to my, admittedly garbage, attempt to be funny but I'll answer.
You'd of thought California would of figured out their gun problems
The problem here is that California is part of a nation which has laws both barring limits to interstate commerce and enshrining the ownership of weapons as a fundamental right. In that legislative environment it doesn't matter how many gun control bills are passed in one jurisdiction, you can't block access to the flow from others because you're all in the same country and "freedom".
If California were a sovereign natio
Re: (Score:2)
California checks for fruit and vegetables coming from out of state. I've been asked both at the check point on the 8 Freeway coming out of AZ and I've passed through a checkpoint coming out of Nevada on the 15 heading into California. If we can check for those we could ask about guns.
Also, the last major shootings all happened with guns legally obtained under California law when they were purchased. Same for the San Bernardino mass shooting the happened a few years ago. All the guns were legally bought wit
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Unless you intend to go door to door to every home in American, make the residents sit on the curb while the police ransack the house looking for guns, you are not going to put the gun genie back in the bottom. This is why you need to have mandatory, stiff penalties for using guns in a crime. That would be us being tough on crime and that doesn't fit in with the blue teams agenda.
Just imagine, going to Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City and actually confiscating the guns. Never going to h
Re: (Score:1)
People here usually blame capitalism for everything. But this is not capitalism, it is the exact opposite. This rent-seeking is enabled by legislation.
So please remember this everytime you cry for the government to intervene and for laws to be passed. The consequences are quite forseeable.
The solution is to roll back laws and regulations, not to pile them on.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Europe has affordable housing? They got that college thing figured out? I know they don't have their energy policies figured out nor their immigration policies.
Without living there I can't really say, but if they were the shining city on the hill, why would they bother coming here in droves for college and many of them stay? Doesn't really make sense to me. Especially with all our problems.
It's dangerous here, after all. You might get shot walking your doggie or just SEEING a cop could end up with y
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the problem isn't that there are too many regulations, but that we have the wrong regulations and a corrupt legislature that has no incentive on creating the right ones?
This is definitely the problem. Whenever anyone argues "We have too [much|little] regulation!" you can tell they are a moron. The answer is we have too much bad regulation, and not enough good regulation. The situation is significantly more nuanced than [more|less]
Re: (Score:1)
The solution is to roll back laws and regulations, not to pile them on.
Yes, because the 19th century was awesome.
odd thing to say. the 19th century was awesome.
a buttload of modern inventions happened during the 19th century: electric light, tin cans, electromagnets, sewing machines, antiseptics, telephone, toilet paper, TOILET PAPER, did i mention TOILET PAPER
late 19th century cities had air pollution problems, and it got worse in the 20th century... and lead was en vogue... but anyway, if you know of any utopias outside fiction and manifestos, send us the blueprints.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. Anyone who thinks the government "helping" with more regulation or socializing health care is going to reduce cost and waste is kidding themselves. It merely hides the rotten underbelly of corruption under an extra layer of government "oversight" so that there's even less transparency. The same bad actors will still be getting rich on the backs of the vulnerable, but now the cost is just spread more broadly across ALL taxpayers to obfuscate the rent seeking, waste, and corruption.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is what capitalism has become, as the winners of capitalism become richer, they gain more power through their wealth. They naturally want to protect their wealth and use that wealth to do so.
You are right, we don't have capitalism we have socialism for the rich.
But I disagree with you that more laws mean worse, just some and definitely patent/copyright laws they are definitely worse, when due process is thrown out the window to stop such a "heinous" crime as downloading a movie, you can see where the po
Re: (Score:2)
Ban lobbying? You are just setting up another expensive bureaucracy to be subverted and captured by insiders, while being used to slap down unwelcome intruders.
Publically funded campaigns? A slush fund for the Republicrats, while dark money will still find a way.
You will never get money out of politics, it is a fool's errand. Better to get the politics out of money.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P. J. O'Rourke
Re: (Score:2)
Sad Decline (Score:5, Interesting)
My theory is that it is mostly a result of direct to consumer (DTC) advertising. When DTC became legal in the US, most of the pharmaceutical management went from scientists to marketing types. When Pfizer hired the former head of Boston Chicken to run the business, the writing was on the wall.
Just my opinion from 45 years of watching up close.
Re: (Score:3)
Makes sense. It is no accident that DTC stays illegal in Europe. The reason was always that it would be a greed-accelerator causing pretty much the effects you describe.
Re: Sad Decline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
wrong conclusion. Government patent protection, laws and regulations are the reason for the inevitable destruction of competition. Government pretends to deal with problems in reality it is the cause of the problems. There shouldn't be patent and copyrights protection by any government, the market can protect itself with trade secrets where it is worth being protected, but essentially government can only destroy things in the long run. Patents and copyrights must be abolished, income taxes, wealth tax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand, shouldn't it be everyone's dream except for the politicians and government employees and people living on the dole?
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that but a LOT of people want to be told what to do, when to do and how to do. They will deny it completely but that's what their voting record shows. They think with enough government they can subvert all the bad parts of human nature. It's really adorable because it's such an idealistic yet naive way of looking at things.
For example, instead of punishing people that use guns to commit crimes, we pass laws that hurt law abiding citizens and make it harder for them to obtain guns. We let peo
Re: (Score:2)
This is surprisingly insightful. A slightly skewed perspective, but insightful nonetheless. A shame that I do not have mod points right now. You and crunchcrunch deserve some positive modding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I run a business, this one I started back in 2015, we provide services based on the software we develop. There are literally over 1000 competitors, hundreds of them do things very similar to our way of doing it, never stops us from working and getting business anyway and it doesn't matter what the competitors have in their code base, it could even be our code (I know of a couple of instances of our source code theft, it is always an internal job). This doesn't stop us, however what is constantly a thre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We have that as well, we sell our products (it is a business to business sale) and provide support. It is the same situation, people do business regardless of competition. How many restaurants are there per mile in your city?
Re: (Score:2)
Chairman Bernie (Score:4, Funny)
Sen. Bernie Sanders has long made no secret that he thinks drug companies and health insurers are ripping off Americans. But now he's chairman of the Senate health committee.
Asked specifically if that will include calling drug company executives to testify, Sanders said: "We're working on a strategy right now that will be very aggressive."
Sanders has already set the tone for his chairmanship with a Fox News op-ed saying "greedy pharma rips off Americans." In a short video he posted on Twitter, Sanders previewed the committee's agenda, including how it would "take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry."
Sanders allies say it is little secret that he wants to press pharmaceutical executives. "I think very near the first order of business for Bernie Sanders at HELP is calling these corporations to account," said Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive group Social Security Works.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/... [axios.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"We're working on a strategy right now that will be very aggressive."
Um, so his answer was what? Oh, 'We're doing something"
"Sanders allies say it is little secret that he wants to press pharmaceutical executives."
It's no secret I want to press a car seller. They are so far ignoring my pleas for a free car, and pocket change offers haven't changed their responses. They demand a meaningful bribe though they call that the sales price. Want is not do.
Re: Chairman Bernie (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't remember, how did Bernie sanders vote when the government wanted to force countless millions of Americans to buy private health insurance back in 2010?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Asked specifically if that will include calling drug company executives to testify, Sanders said: "We're working on a strategy right now that will be very aggressive."
This is grandstanding that accomplishes nothing. You know would would accomplish something? Changing patent laws to no longer allow protection for "different use of the same chemical" ad infinitum.
It's like "Hey, we invented a rifle, and you can use it to shoot deer" followed a couple of years later by "Hey, you know that rifle we invented? Turns out you can also use it to shoot elk, who knew? So we need a longer patent term" followed a couple of years later by, "And moose. You can shoot moose with it,
Re: (Score:2)
Asked specifically if that will include calling drug company executives to testify, Sanders said: "We're working on a strategy right now that will be very aggressive."
This is grandstanding that accomplishes nothing. You know would would accomplish something? Changing patent laws to no longer allow protection for "different use of the same chemical" ad infinitum.
It's like "Hey, we invented a rifle, and you can use it to shoot deer" followed a couple of years later by "Hey, you know that rifle we invented? Turns out you can also use it to shoot elk, who knew? So we need a longer patent term" followed a couple of years later by, "And moose. You can shoot moose with it, too! Fucking hell, we're brilliant, obviously the patent term needs to extend." A few years later? You guessed it, "Holy fuck, our 'lets see what else you can shoot with a rifle project' has determined that our rifle can also shoot bear. Obviously, our patent needs to be extended." "Guys, you ain't gonna believe this shit, but our field work in Africa suggests you can shoot ibex with our rifle."
Putting a stop that would actually be something useful. Putting on a show in a congressional hearing that will ultimately lead to no fucking change is actually worse than doing nothing.
Okay. And how exactly you will incentivize legitimate drug repurposing research after you do that? It's quite easy to say the current system sucks and needs to be tossed. It's quite a different thing to propose a workable alternative.
Re:Chairman Bernie (Score:4, Insightful)
It's quite easy to say the current system sucks and needs to be tossed. It's quite a different thing to propose a workable alternative.
Criticism accepted, I agree with this statement in general, and I can certainly see the applicability to what I said above. With that said, I am not in this particular field, so anything I say below beyond the first point is obviously from the perspective of an uneducated layman:
Okay. And how exactly you will incentivize legitimate drug repurposing research after you do that?
"You can sell more of this during the roughly two decade monopoly you have on the drug" would seem to supply plenty of incentivization, already.
I am also going to do something dangerous and make an assumption here: that "drug repurposing research" is not about throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks, but logical progressions of what the original research showed, or the investigation of correlations from trials or patient followups (i.e. "people who took our heart medication ended up with 'increased blood flow' to other parts of their body, and hoo boy do we have a moneymaker on our hands here.") IOW, isn't this research largely already baked into the original costs to bring the drug to market? Do we have to extend monopolies, here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The very first thing is to BAN advertisement on drugs, like it's already the case all over Europe. When you see big pharma corps with larger marketing budgets than research budgets, it's not only obscene, it means it's not a pharma corps anymore, just an advertisement corp that happens to also sells drugs.
Geez. Economy 101. Marketing is profitable (they wouldn't do it otherwise), which means it pays for itself, AND produces extra funds for other departments like research. Outlawing marketing means LESS money for research, not more. If you were to argue for outlawing of marketing on basis of harmful effects of convincing the society they need to swallow handfuls of pills to survive you might have a point, but be aware, research is going to take a hit because of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's bullshit. Look at their budgets. Some spend 90% on marketing and advertisement, the rest on production and research. And also in Europe advertisement for medicines is illegal, hence their costs are WAY lower. And they still manage to make a decent buck (or better).
And exactly which part of "marketing is profitable as a whole (costs and profits total), otherwise they wouldn't do it, which means it brings money INTO the system not out" have you disproven? Oh, right, none.
Re: Chairman Bernie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two years of Obama's term he had complete control of Congress, both chambers. Why didn't they handle it if they were so unhappy with what happened during the Bush years? Shit, they passed Romneycare, sorry i meant obamacare, with not one single republican vote. If they could pass ANYTHING they wanted, why didn't they give us government healthcare right then and there?
The same can be said about Biden's first two years also, though his majority was only with a tie breaker, so much less narrow in scope.
Sti
Once again individuals can't beat mega corporation (Score:2, Insightful)
You as an individual cannot bargain let alone comparison shop for life-saving medicine. Instead what you need to do is get together into a large group of fellow citizens to do that. You can try doing that with private organizations but the problem with that
Re:Once again individuals can't beat mega corporat (Score:4, Funny)
You as an individual cannot bargain let alone comparison shop for life-saving medicine
Turns out that you can. Believe it or not, prices at retail pharmacies in the US can vary wildly--and by 'wildly' I mean "hundreds of percent differences'--for the same drug, and buying your medicine without the insurance company can actually be significantly cheaper than with it.
The entire system is broken, and "single payer" is not going to fix it in the US. The pharma industry is rigged at the federal level, designed to reduce and remove competition and price pressures, and the only one to try to do anything about it in recent memory is Darth Cheeto, and his attempts were undone on day one of the Biden admin.
That assumes you can find a generic (Score:2)
Yeah I paid $260 instead of five grand, but I shouldn't have had to pay $
Re: (Score:2)
What you're talking about is also true, but is not what I was talking about.
If you use a local pharmacy, vs Walgreens vs CVS vs Walmart vs supermarket pharmacy vs whoever else, for the exact same drug (both name brand or generic) the cost difference can be in the hundreds of percent. I have a child with ADHD and generic Concerta has a price spread of $30 to $200, depending on which of those entities you buy through, and whether or not you use insurance. It's $100 at Walgreens without insurance, and $130 wi
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when the Democrats passed their healthcare bill in 2010? They didn't get one single Republican vote. Not one but they were able to pass their legislation. Why didn't they give us Single Payer Government healthcare right then and there?
But sure, one party is definitely better then the other party. Right.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican party is so evil and extreme now it's got to go. We can't move forward as a country until it does. Sadly it looks like we're going to have to wait about 8 to 10 years for the baby boomers to pass on before we get that. They've gone all in on homophobia, transph
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly it looks like we're going to have to wait about 8 to 10 years for the baby boomers to pass on before we get that.
And when that happens and things still don't change? Then what? Excuses excuses. The Democrats are corrupt too; although your naivety is adorable, it leads to corruption, slavery, and death.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of excuses but since the Democrats were to pussy to try, we didn't get single payer. I think it's because they are just as corrupt and shitty as the Republicans.
The Democrats need to not let the Republicans call their bluffs. But that's the smoke and mirrors. The illusion we have real choice.
Pay for Delay (Score:2)
A good solution would be to allow the US government to negotiate drug prices, which would set a floor for what insurance companies would pay. This could have done when the Bush II administration created welfare for drug users, but instead it created a system where drug makers were able to funnel massive profits from the taxpayer.
But pay for delay should be
now? (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should see your mom this morning, after she sold herself on the street all weekend. Talk about a mess.
The war on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
"Made" vs Revenue (Score:2)
The company sold $114 Billion in product, they didn't "make" $114 Billion - "made" and "make" generally refer to profit, not revenue. I'm quite certain a fair chunk of that money was made. Implying with federal regulations, supporting advertising and marketing efforts, transportation, warehousing, and, of course, manufacturing and licensing costs (if any) to the group they bought the formulation from in the first place.
Wait! What? (Score:2)
For example, an early Humira patent, which expired in 2016, claimed that the drug could treat a condition known as ankylosing spondylitis, a type of arthritis that causes inflammation in the joints, among other diseases. In 2014, AbbVie applied for another patent for a method of treating ankylosing spondylitis with a specific dosing of 40 milligrams of Humira. The application was approved, adding 11 years of patent protection beyond 2016.
The initial patent should have covered the claims of the second one. How does the USPTO approve a general patent and then turn around and approve a specific use case of exactly the same thing? Are the examiners at the patent office morons or what?
Interesting loophole: Doctors prescribe 41 mg of Humira, originally covered by the expired patent but circumventing the new patent's claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1) Patents are granted very easily
2) Patent lawsuits cost nothing to file and hence are a low-risk process (the lawyers work on a "no win no fee" basis)
3) Being the defendant in a patent lawsuit is very risky and very expensive. Either the court finds you guilty for who knows how much, or the court finds you not guilty and you have to pay your lawyer a ton of money because you won.
It's the same reason patent trolls exist. The only solution would be to have the plaintiff of a patent lawsuit pay the defendant's legal costs if they file an unsuccessful patent suit.
Profit and side-effects (Score:2)
Companies are in the business of making money. All else is a side-effect. Kind of like how pharma companies try to maximise the effectiveness of a drug while minimising side-effects, their profit-seeking activities do the same: make the most money possible while producing a minimum of 'side-effects' (aka actual products).
Re: (Score:2)
And why wouldn't they? (Score:2)
Why wouldn't drug companies game the system like this? It's literally the behavior the law is designed to reward. Maybe accidentally so, if you want to credit politicians with incompetence rather than malice - but their track record strongly suggests they know exactly what they're doing: giving lobbyists exactly what they want in order to keep the bribes flowing.
Much like with DMCA takedown notices - if you create a system where there's profit/advantage to be had by abusing the system, and absolutely no p