“Patent Expirations Will Stabilize the Pharmaceutical Industry.”
I must believe it, because I’m quoted in the St. Louis Observer as having said it!
The reporter did a good job of capturing what I meant, quoting me as saying “the industry will be more diverse, with a more stable, though smaller, revenue base spread among many more products.”
To expand, I think that the loss of patents on some of the larger brands will mean that the pharmaceutical industry will rely on a larger number of smaller-market products for the lion’s share of its revenues. The loss of marketing exclusivity on drugs like Lipitor, Nexium, and Plavix will mean that drug companies will need to derive their revenues from a greater number of products. While this might be bad for Pfizer, Astrazeneca, and Sanofi Aventis, the overall result should be a healthier, less volatile, pharmaceutical industry.
The November 2010 issue of the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology is now available. The links below will take you to the abstract for each paper:
Volume 16, Issue 4
|Federal bureaucrats slip on oil spill||PDF|
|Henry I Miller|
Legal and Regulatory Updates
|Legal and Regulatory Update||PDF|
|The aftermath of Bilski||PDF|
|Thomas C Meyers, Adam M Schoen|
|Commentary regarding decision in Bilski from a biotech perspective||PDF|
|Thomas J Kowalski, Heidi E Lunasin, Deborah L Lu, Brian M McGuire, Frank J DeRosa|
Drug Patent Expirations in November 2010
*Drugs may be covered by multiple patents
|Tradename||Applicant||Generic Name||Patent Number|| Patent Expiration|
|SAMSCA||Otsuka America Pharm||tolvaptan||5,258,510||Nov 2, 2010|
|TRUVADA||Gilead||emtricitabine; tenofovir disoproxil fumarate||5,210,085*PED||Nov 11, 2010|
|COZAAR||Merck||losartan potassium||5,210,079*PED||Nov 11, 2010|
|EMTRIVA||Gilead||emtricitabine||5,210,085*PED||Nov 11, 2010|
|ATRIPLA||Gilead||efavirenz; emtricitabine; tenofovir disoproxil fumarate||5,210,085*PED||Nov 11, 2010|
|TAXOTERE||Sanofi Aventis Us||docetaxel||4,814,470*PED||Nov 14, 2010|
|GEMZAR||Lilly||gemcitabine hydrochloride||4,808,614*PED||Nov 15, 2010|
|RAPAMUNE||Wyeth Pharms Inc||sirolimus||5,212,155*PED||Nov 18, 2010|
|FORTOVASE||Hoffmann La Roche||saquinavir||5,196,438||Nov 19, 2010|
|INVIRASE||Hoffmann La Roche||saquinavir mesylate||5,196,438||Nov 19, 2010|
|INVIRASE||Roche||saquinavir mesylate||5,196,438||Nov 19, 2010|
|VITRAVENE PRESERVATIVE FREE||Novartis||fomivirsen sodium||5,264,423||Nov 23, 2010|
|PEPCID AC||Merck Sharp Dohme||famotidine||5,075,114*PED||Nov 23, 2010|
|PEPCID COMPLETE||Merck Sharp Dohme||calcium carbonate; famotidine; magnesium hydroxide||5,075,114*PED||Nov 23, 2010|
|ADALAT CC||Bayer Hlthcare||nifedipine||5,264,446||Nov 23, 2010|
|PROCARDIA XL||Pfizer||nifedipine||5,264,446||Nov 23, 2010|
|ARICEPT ODT||Eisai Inc||donepezil hydrochloride||4,895,841||Nov 25, 2010|
|ARICEPT||Eisai Inc||donepezil hydrochloride||4,895,841||Nov 25, 2010|
|HYCAMTIN||Smithkline Beecham||topotecan hydrochloride||5,004,758*PED||Nov 28, 2010|
|BUTRANS||Purdue Pharma Lp||buprenorphine||5,240,711||Nov 28, 2010|
This information is also available in an email newsletter: Subscribe to the DrugPatentWatch Patent Expiration Bulletin. Courtesy of DrugPatentWatch.com
Freelance Sarah Webster describes how Biopharma Technology is using laser-based headspace moisture analysis for rapid and non-destructive moisture determination of freeze-dried pharmaceutical products.
I’ve just had a paper published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, using data from DrugPatentWatch to profile the locations of drug invention for the past decade.
The location of drug development is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is important to track the global spread of innovation. Much late stage drug development (e.g. clinical trials) and manufacturing have moved to lower wage-cost countries, but trends in the location of invention has not been clearly described. Knowing where drug invention is occurring can help streamline drug development by identifying ideal locations for research facilities. Secondly it is important to know where invention is occurring, because that may affect which drugs are developed. Early-stage research funding and, by extension, the research itself, is likely to be focused on conditions affecting the countries in which these activities are occurring. For example, research in the United States might focus on conditions such as heart disease and stroke, whereas research in Japan might emphasize stomach cancer.
By examining the patents covering drugs developed over the last decade, I was able to ascertain the locations of the inventors. Focusing on inventors is important because it gives a clear indication of where the control of the invention was located. Patents are required to list the names and locations of the individual(s) who maintained intellectual domination of the invention. Failure to list all inventors, or listing too many inventors, can yield an invalid patent. Whereas one might consider assessing globalization of invention by focusing on the location of the company funding the research, or the company listed on the patent, these strategies are flawed. The company funding the research may not be the same company which conducted the research (e.g. Japanese companies funded many of the early US biotechnology companies, but the inventions occurred in the US by US researchers, so focusing on the funder might produce the incorrect conclusion that the innovation was Japan-based), and many companies have facilities in multiple countries, making it impossible to determine in which of the countries an invention might have occurred. Looking at the company listed on a patent is also flawed. The company listed on a patent might not have been the company that housed the researchers or, even worse, it may be a tax shelter based in a country where no invention occurred. So, by focusing on the locations of the listed inventors it is possible to determine where the invention occurred. An additional benefit of this strategy is that it enables inclusion of patenters from numerous countries. For example for a patent listing one US-based and two Canadian inventors, the US would be given 1/3 credit for an invention, and Canada 2/3 credit.
So, what did I find? In short, the US and the legacy pharmaceutical countries in Europe (United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, France and Switzerland) have been responsible for the bulk of new drugs invented over the past decade, and there is no indication that this dominance is waning. Emerging economies such as India and China were largely absent. For more details, please see the paper at Nature Reviews Drug Discovery: Location of pharmaceutical innovation: 2000–2009.
You can also get more detailed information on the complete set of drug inventors and where they live in my Global Drug Patent Inventor Report and Individual Country Drug Patent Inventor Reports.
What do you think of the findings? Are you surprised? Do you disagree? Sound off in the comments.