Graph with number of biosimilar approvals on the X axis and years from 1970 until 2018 on the Y axis. The line on the graph represents a generally upward trend.

The Rise of Biosimilars: Success of the BPCIA? (Part III)

By Jonathan Darrow

This is Part III in a series exploring the history, challenges, and opportunities in the regulation of biosimilars, or biologic medical products that are very similar to already approved biological medicines.  Part III considers a path forward in the regulation of biologics.  For Part I, click here.  For Part II click here.

A Path Forward

The small number of biosimilar approvals compared to generic drug approvals cannot establish the failure of the BPCIA due to differences in industry familiarity with each follow-on pathway, the number of reference products available for copying, patient population sizes, patent barriers, and drug costs. The later arrival of US laws and guidance documents—not inadequate legal design—is the most straightforward explanation of why the first US biosimilar approvals were delayed compared to those in Europe.

Read More

Graph with number of biosimilar approvals on the X axis and years from 1970 until 2018 on the Y axis. The line on the graph represents a generally upward trend.

The Rise of Biosimilars: Success of the BPCIA? (Part II)

By Jonathan Darrow

This is Part II in a series exploring the history, challenges, and opportunities in the regulation of biosimilars, or biologic medical products that are very similar to already approved biological medicines.  Part II covers some key considerations and factors that impact the biologics market and regulation.  For Part I, click here.

Reference Products Available for Copying in 1984

Because most post-1962 drugs enjoyed a 17-year patent term (changed to 20 years in 1995), there was little need for an abbreviated pathway in the years immediately following the Kefauver-Harris Amendments. But as patents expired, increasing numbers of post-1962 drugs became available for copying yet were ineligible as reference products under the 1970 ANDA regulations. On the eve of the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress estimated that approximately 150 post-1962 drugs were off-patent but had no generic equivalent. This backlog of available reference products produced a surge in ANDA approvals following enactment of the new law (Exhibit 1).

Read More

Graph with number of biosimilar approvals on the X axis and years from 1970 until 2018 on the Y axis. The line on the graph represents a generally upward trend.

The Rise of Biosimilars: Success of the BPCIA? (Part I)

By Jonathan Darrow

This is Part I in a series exploring the history, challenges, and opportunities in the regulation of biosimilars, or biologic medical products that are very similar to already-approved biological medicines.  This Part briefly covers the history of American regulation of biologics and touches briefly on the European experience.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, sought to drive down prices for biologics, much as the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act did for small-molecule drugs. By allowing manufacturers of follow-on products to rely in part on the clinical data of the brand-name reference product, both laws were designed to lower development costs and attract competitors.

Since the BPCIA’s enactment, however, scholars have compared it unfavorably to the Hatch-Waxman Act, criticized its pathway as “obstructed” and lacking in sufficient incentives, lamented the scarce approvals it has produced, and recommended that it be “abandoned.” Although criticisms of the law are not without basis, their collective implication—that the BPCIA is irredeemably defective and will never yield robust competition—may be wrong.

Read More

Researcher works at a lab bench

Do Pharmaceutical Patents Generate Unique Global Health Duties?

By Govind Persad

Imagine a Harvard MBA graduate trying to decide between jobs at Pfizer and at Snapchat. Both are immensely wealthy firms. Many of Pfizer’s products benefit global health. Snapchat’s are at best neutral and may even harm health. Yet many see Pfizer as distinctively culpable for global health deficits. These arguments often depend on the fact that Pfizer holds intellectual property (IP) in pharmaceuticals, whereas Snapchat holds cash and non-pharmaceutical IP.

In a recent paper in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, Examining Pharmaceutical Exceptionalism: Intellectual Property, Practical Expediency, and Global Health, I argue for two conclusions:

  1.  Holders of pharmaceutical IP (like Pfizer) aren’t uniquely culpable for global health deficits. Other actors (like Snapchat) who fail to use available resources–including ordinary property and non-pharmaceutical IP–to address health deficits, or who affirmatively cause health deficits, also bear responsibility.
  2. But laws requiring pharmaceutical IP holders, but not others, to address global health deficits are nevertheless justifiable. Legal responsibility needn’t perfectly mirror moral responsibility.

Read More

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office building

Laws and Facts of Patent Eligibility and Medical Diagnostics

This post is part of our Eighth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review symposium. You can read all of the posts in the series here. Review the conference’s full agenda and register for the event on the Petrie-Flom Center’s website.

By Jacob S. Sherkow

For this year’s Health Law Year in P/Review, I’ll be talking about § 101, that most enigmatic of laws from the patent statute. Like many other areas of intellectual property, patent law has a threshold subject matter inquiry embodied in statute—this is § 101—which reads, “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” But because any “competent draftsman” of patent applications could claim an invention as, say, “a process” rather merely an idea, courts have, almost since the statute’s first enactment in 1790, ignored the language of the text entirely. You should too. Instead, it has for almost all of its history, been interpreted in the following manner: “Anything under the sun made by man” is patentable subject matter, save “abstract ideas” or “natural laws, phenomena, or products.” Sure: defining what is a “natural” law is tough, but it’s not a phrase so devoid of application as to make it nonsense. (Unless you’re a complexity theorist.) Read More

Close up of a computer screen displaying code

What Google Isn’t Saying About Your Health Records

By Adrian Gropper

Google’s semi-secret deal with Ascension is testing the limits of HIPAA as society grapples with the future impact of machine learning and artificial intelligence.

I. Glenn Cohen points out that HIPAA may not be keeping up with our methods of consent by patients and society on the ways personal data is used. Is prior consent, particularly consent from vulnerable patients seeking care, a good way to regulate secret commercial deals with their caregivers? The answer to a question is strongly influenced by how you ask the questions.

Read More

Pipette and test tubes in a rack

Novartis, Dana Farber, Oregon Health & Science University Wait 18 Years to Disclose NIH Funding in Key Gleevec Patent

By James Love

This is a story about U.S. patent number 6,958,335, and how it took more than 18 years for Novartis to acknowledge National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in a key patent for Gleevec, allowing Novartis to shape the narrative regarding its role in the development of Gleevec, and also to avoid demands that Novartis make the invention “available to the public on reasonable terms,” which is an obligation under the Bayh-Dole Act.

On May 10, 2001, the United States FDA approved a new drug, imatinib, initially for the treatment of a rare indication: chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The drug was registered by Novartis, which sold the drug under the brand name Gleevec in the United States and several other markets, and as Glivec in others.

Read More

A graphic that reads "United States Mexico Canada Agreement"

USMCA Agreement and the Remedies for Patent Infringement

The United States Trade Representative has published a statement regarding the proposed U.S., Mexico and Canada (USMCA) trade agreement drug prices. According to USTR:

“nothing in the newly negotiated USMCA will require changing U.S. laws on pharmaceutical intellectual property rights or lead to higher prices on drugs for U.S. consumers.”

There are several complaints against the USMCA on this issue, including that it both will lock in bad features of current laws, and is inconsistent with U.S. law. Read More

Abstract representation of DNA double helix

Gene Editing and Intellectual Property: A Useful Mix?

The Health Policy and Bioethics Consortia is a monthly series that convenes two international experts from different fields or vantage points to discuss how biomedical innovation and health care delivery are affected by various ethical norms, laws, and regulations.

They are organized by the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in collaboration with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Support provided by the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

A light lunch will be provided. This event is free and open to the public, but space is limited and registration is required. Please note that attendees will need to show ID in order to enter the venue. Register now!

 

One way of thinking about genome editing is through the lens of the legal and ethical obligations of ensuring the technology is deployed safely and accurately, for the betterment of human society.

Or, if that’s a mouthful for you, genome editing’s rights—and wrongs. Which brings me to a talk I’ll* be giving at Harvard Medical School on March 8: “Genome Editing: Rights and Wrongs” I feel obligated, however, to asterisk the personal pronoun (“I”) because, in truth, what I’ll be doing is sharing the stage with one the world’s most celebrated scientists, George Church, world-renowned bioethicist, Jeantine Lunshof, and moderated by health policy guru, Aaron Kesselheim. Read More