Re: Dominant Patents

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Yee Wah Chin wrote:

> how many years are left on the biotech firm's patent?

    The new invention was first discovered in 1991, only six years after the
first patent was issued (in 1985) for the drug.  I'm not sure when the
effective protection for the first patent will expire.  There is the primary
term, which I believe is still 17.  But often companies can get effective
extension, sometimes by "evergreening" the patent, with patents on treatment
regimes (as was done with Taxol recently).  This typically gives an
automatic 30 months extra, at a minimum, and it can give much more.

> what substitutes
> are there for the patented product, both during and after the life of
> the patent?

      I don't believe there are any significant substitutes available now.

> how locked in are reimbursement schedules realistically?

      I would say pretty locked in.  Negations over reimbursement schedules
are prominently mentioned in company 10k reports.  There is much resistance
to the high price of drug.  A new product+ with a higher price is a
possibility, but might be difficult to sell to payers.  For one thing, the
new  invention would benefit some patents much more than others.

> what basis might the biotech firm have to sue the inventor?

     I'm not sure about this.  However, companies that were approached about
licensing the invention specifically mentioned this as a reason not to work
on the product.  One company had already spend a reported $40 million (I am
told) in litigation with patent owner in dispute over drug.

    There is a possiblity that a claim would be made that the new invention
is covered in part by the old patent.

> how much would total demand for the patented product rise if less of it
> is needed for effective treatment?

    Inventor tried to persuade the orginial patent owner that this would
compensate for lose of unit sales for established base.  The orginial patent
owner was not impressed with this argument.


> in other words, how much is current
> demand for the product constrained by the amount, and the therefore the
> cost, of the product needed for effective treatment?  are we talking
> about a cancer cure or an acne treatment?

     It is a an expensive drug $1,000 to $3,000 per treatment, I was told.
It is for life threatening medical problems.   The drug saves lives, for
those who can afford it.    There are many patients worldwide who do not use
the drug because of its high cost.

--
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
voice 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176