Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Globalization and Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Moderating the impact of patent linkage on access to medicines: lessons from variations in South Korea, Australia, Canada, and the United States

Authors: Kyung-Bok Son, Ruth Lopert, Deborah Gleeson, Tae-Jin Lee

Published in: Globalization and Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The inclusion of patent linkage mechanisms in bilateral and plurilateral trade and investment agreements has emerged as a key element in the United States’ TRIPS-Plus intellectual property (IP) negotiating agenda. However, the provisions establishing patent linkage mechanisms in several agreements appear to reflect a degree of ambiguity, potentially enabling some flexibility in their implementation. In this study, we reviewed the features of the prototypic patent linkage mechanism established by the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States, and compared these with the implementation of systems in three countries whose agreements with the US include patent linkage obligations. From these analyses, we draw lessons for moderating the impact of these mechanisms on access to generic medicines.

Methods

We reviewed the features of the patent linkage mechanism in the US, and undertook a detailed analysis of relevant treaty provisions and the manner of implementation in Canada, Australia, and South Korea.

Results

A key difference between the US implementation of patent linkage and that of its trading partners is the disparate treatment afforded to biologics. Because of the significant differences in the regulatory frameworks applying to small molecule and biologic medicines in the US, the Hatch- Waxman provisions do not apply to biologics and they are not subject to patent linkage. By contrast, the regulatory frameworks in Canada, Australia and South Korea do not reflect similar distinctions and thus patent linkage mechanisms also capture biologics. Additional variations in implementation, mainly the result of constructive ambiguities in the respective treaty texts, offer potential opportunity for mitigating the adverse impact of patent linkage provisions on market entry of generic medicines. Practical measures include ensuring the availability of an accessible, transparent and easily searchable database of patent information; avoiding automatic stays of generic marketing approval where possible; and requiring certification by rights holders to prevent abuse of the system.

Conclusions

Where countries accept treaty obligations to establish patent linkage mechanisms, the impact on access to generic medicines may be moderated to a degree by retaining and exploiting constructive ambiguities in the treaty text and addressing practical aspects of implementation.
Footnotes
1
The Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations
 
2
If the litigation is not initiated within 45 days the FDA is free to grant marketing approval, but the generic launch may nevertheless be ‘at risk’.
 
3
Notably, prior to the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 multiple 30-month stays were possible.
 
4
The processing of marketing authorization procedures can be carried out without being affected by the protection of industrial and commercial property interests. See Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use
 
5
The Drug Price Competition & Patent Term Restoration Act 1984, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, & Modernization Act 2003, and the Biologics Price Competition & Innovation Act 2009 in the US, the Patented Medicines Notice of Compliance (PMNOC) Regulation in Canada, the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in Australia, and the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act in Korea.
 
6
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Sec 314.53 (d) When and where to submit patent information
 
7
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Sec 314.53 (b) Patents for which information must be submitted and patents for which information must not be submitted
 
8
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Sec 314.53 (c) Reporting requirements
 
9
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Sec 314.53 (f) Correction of patent information error
 
10
42 U.S.C. § 262 (l) Patents
 
11
21 U.S.C. § 355 (b) Filing Application. An ANDA submission requires the filing of a certificate asserting that either
  • para (i) - no patent is listed in the Orange Book
  • para (ii) – the listed patent has expired
  • para (iii) – the listed patent will expire before approval is granted
  • para (iv) – the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed.
Even though the generic manufacturer cannot market the drug prior to approval of the ANDA, the filing of a Paragraph IV Certification is nonetheless treated as an act of patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A)
 
12
21 U.S.C. § 355 (j) Abbreviated New Drug Applications
 
13
42 U.S.C. § 262 (l) Patents
 
14
21 U.S.C. § 355 (j) Abbreviated New Drug Applications
 
15
42 U.S.C. § 262 (l) Patents
 
16
21 U.S.C. § 355 (j) Abbreviated New Drug Applications
 
17
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, s.26B
 
18
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Sec 314.53 (c) Reporting requirements in the United States, PMNOC 4 (2) in Canada, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–2 in Korea
 
19
PMNOC 4
 
20
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–3
 
21
PMNOC 3.1
 
22
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–3
 
23
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 26C and 26D
 
24
PMNOC 7 (1)
 
25
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–6
 
26
PMNOC 7 (1)
 
27
In this context the Australian system does not in fact meet the definition of patent linkage since there is no direct link between the patent status of the originator and the marketing approval of the generic.
 
28
Therapeutic Goods Act 26C (3)
 
29
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–5
 
30
PMNOC 8
 
31
Therapeutic Goods Act 26C and 26D
 
32
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–7
 
33
PMNOC 3
 
34
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–3
 
35
Australia imposes pecuniary penalties for false or misleading certification, but not for failure to certify.
 
36
An authorized generic (or pseudo-generic) is an originator’s prescription drug that is marketed and distributed by the originator or under license by an authorized generic distributor with a generic product label.
 
37
The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act 50–11
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baker BK. Ending drug registration apartheid: taming data exclusivity and patent/registration linkage. American journal of law & medicine. 2008;34(2–3):303–44.CrossRef Baker BK. Ending drug registration apartheid: taming data exclusivity and patent/registration linkage. American journal of law & medicine. 2008;34(2–3):303–44.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bhardwaj R, et al. The impact of patent linkage on marketing of generic drugs. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. 2013;18:316-22. Bhardwaj R, et al. The impact of patent linkage on marketing of generic drugs. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. 2013;18:316-22.
3.
go back to reference Crowne EA, Mihalceanu C. Innovators and generics: proposals for balancing pharmaceutical patent protection and public access to cheaper medicines in Canada (or, Don't NOC the players, hate the regulations). IDEA. 2011;51:693. Crowne EA, Mihalceanu C. Innovators and generics: proposals for balancing pharmaceutical patent protection and public access to cheaper medicines in Canada (or, Don't NOC the players, hate the regulations). IDEA. 2011;51:693.
4.
go back to reference Son K-B, Lee T-J. The trends and constructive ambiguity in international agreements on intellectual property and pharmaceutical affairs. Glob Public Health. 2018;13(9):1169-78. Son K-B, Lee T-J. The trends and constructive ambiguity in international agreements on intellectual property and pharmaceutical affairs. Glob Public Health. 2018;13(9):1169-78.
5.
go back to reference Correa CM. Implications of bilateral free trade agreements on access to medicines. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(5):399–404.CrossRef Correa CM. Implications of bilateral free trade agreements on access to medicines. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(5):399–404.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lopert R, Gleeson D. The high price of “free” trade: US trade agreements and access to medicines. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(1):199–223.CrossRef Lopert R, Gleeson D. The high price of “free” trade: US trade agreements and access to medicines. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(1):199–223.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sell SK. TRIPS-plus free trade agreements and access to medicines. Liverpool Law Rev. 2007;28(1):41–75.CrossRef Sell SK. TRIPS-plus free trade agreements and access to medicines. Liverpool Law Rev. 2007;28(1):41–75.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ho CM. Beyond Patents: Global Challenges to Affordable Medicine. In: Cohen IG, editor. The globalization of health care: legal and ethical issues. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRef Ho CM. Beyond Patents: Global Challenges to Affordable Medicine. In: Cohen IG, editor. The globalization of health care: legal and ethical issues. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bouchard RA, et al. Empirical analysis of drug approval-drug patenting linkage for high value pharmaceuticals. Nw J Tech & Intell Prop. 2009;8:174. Bouchard RA, et al. Empirical analysis of drug approval-drug patenting linkage for high value pharmaceuticals. Nw J Tech & Intell Prop. 2009;8:174.
11.
go back to reference Baker BK. Trans-Pacific partnership provisions in intellectual property, transparency, and investment chapters threaten access to medicines in the US and elsewhere. PLoS Med. 2016;13(3):e1001970.CrossRef Baker BK. Trans-Pacific partnership provisions in intellectual property, transparency, and investment chapters threaten access to medicines in the US and elsewhere. PLoS Med. 2016;13(3):e1001970.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cerón A, Godoy AS. Intellectual property and access to medicines: an analysis of legislation in Central America. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(10):787–93.CrossRef Cerón A, Godoy AS. Intellectual property and access to medicines: an analysis of legislation in Central America. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(10):787–93.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Freeman RA. The trans-Pacific partnership and pharmaceutical innovation. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2016;12(4):633–7.CrossRef Freeman RA. The trans-Pacific partnership and pharmaceutical innovation. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2016;12(4):633–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Regional framework for action on access to essential medicines in the Western Pacific (2011–2016). Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2012. World Health Organization. Regional framework for action on access to essential medicines in the Western Pacific (2011–2016). Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2012.
15.
go back to reference Faunce TA, Lexchin J. 'Linkage' pharmaceutical evergreening in Canada and Australia. Aust and New Zealand health policy. 2007;4(1):8.CrossRef Faunce TA, Lexchin J. 'Linkage' pharmaceutical evergreening in Canada and Australia. Aust and New Zealand health policy. 2007;4(1):8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Son K, Lee T-J. Prediction of the effect of the Korea-United States FTA on the reimbursement and Price of prescription drugs. In: The Korean journal of health economics and policy; 2014. Son K, Lee T-J. Prediction of the effect of the Korea-United States FTA on the reimbursement and Price of prescription drugs. In: The Korean journal of health economics and policy; 2014.
17.
go back to reference Chaves GC, Oliveira MA. A proposal for measuring the degree of public health-sensitivity of patent legislation in the context of the WTO TRIPS agreement. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(1):49–56.CrossRef Chaves GC, Oliveira MA. A proposal for measuring the degree of public health-sensitivity of patent legislation in the context of the WTO TRIPS agreement. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(1):49–56.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ilias S. Intellectual property rights and access to medicines: International trade issues. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE. 2009. Ilias S. Intellectual property rights and access to medicines: International trade issues. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE. 2009.
20.
go back to reference Oliveira MA, et al. Has the implementation of the TRIPS agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean produced intellectual property legislation that favours public health? Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):815–21.PubMedPubMedCentral Oliveira MA, et al. Has the implementation of the TRIPS agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean produced intellectual property legislation that favours public health? Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):815–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Rossi F. Free trade agreements and TRIPS-plus measures. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management. 2006;1(1–2):150–72.CrossRef Rossi F. Free trade agreements and TRIPS-plus measures. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management. 2006;1(1–2):150–72.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Drahos, P., et al. (2004). "The FTA and the PBS—A submission to the senate select committee on the US–Australia free trade agreement." Government of Australia, Canberra. Drahos, P., et al. (2004). "The FTA and the PBS—A submission to the senate select committee on the US–Australia free trade agreement." Government of Australia, Canberra.
23.
go back to reference Lindsay P. The ambiguity of GATT article XXI: subtle success or rampant failure? Duke law journal. 2003;52(6):1277–313. Lindsay P. The ambiguity of GATT article XXI: subtle success or rampant failure? Duke law journal. 2003;52(6):1277–313.
24.
go back to reference Oosterveld V. Constructive ambiguity and the meaning of “gender” for the international criminal court. Int Fem J Polit. 2014;16(4):563–80.CrossRef Oosterveld V. Constructive ambiguity and the meaning of “gender” for the international criminal court. Int Fem J Polit. 2014;16(4):563–80.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Grabowski H, et al. Pharmaceutical patent challenges: company strategies and litigation outcomes. American Journal of Health Economics. 2017;3(1):33–59.CrossRef Grabowski H, et al. Pharmaceutical patent challenges: company strategies and litigation outcomes. American Journal of Health Economics. 2017;3(1):33–59.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Park E, Byeon J. Patent-approval linkage system and health insurance - supplementing the system to promote innovation and prevent public financial loss. Korea Social Policy Review. 2016;23(4):93–116. Park E, Byeon J. Patent-approval linkage system and health insurance - supplementing the system to promote innovation and prevent public financial loss. Korea Social Policy Review. 2016;23(4):93–116.
33.
go back to reference Grabowski H, Long G, Mortimer R. Recent trends in brand-name and generic drug competition. Journal of medical economics. 2014;17(3):207–14.CrossRef Grabowski H, Long G, Mortimer R. Recent trends in brand-name and generic drug competition. Journal of medical economics. 2014;17(3):207–14.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Moderating the impact of patent linkage on access to medicines: lessons from variations in South Korea, Australia, Canada, and the United States
Authors
Kyung-Bok Son
Ruth Lopert
Deborah Gleeson
Tae-Jin Lee
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Globalization and Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1744-8603
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0423-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Globalization and Health 1/2018 Go to the issue