La renovación permanente de la validez de las patentes aumenta los precios de los medicamentos de manera injustificada y obstaculiza el crecimiento de los fabricantes locales, alegan los fabricantes tailandeses y las ONG 09/08/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment BANGKOK – Las tácticas que emplean los fabricantes transnacionales de medicamentos para obtener patentes sin mérito suficiente han aumentado innecesariamente los costos de atención de la salud y han impedido el crecimiento de la industria nacional de medicamentos genéricos, lo cual le ha costado al Gobierno de Tailandia cientos de millones de dólares, señalaron los fabricantes locales y defensores del acceso a los medicamentos.
Reforma da Lei de patentes na Ucrânia em evidência após sociedade civil pressionar por acesso a medicamentos 09/08/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Parlamentares ucranianos podem aprovar a qualquer momento mudanças importantes na legislação de patentes no país. Em grande parte, as mudanças são motivadas por pressões de grupos de pacientes, que reivindicam melhor acesso a medicamentos e cuidados de saúde.
Ucrania analiza la reforma de la ley de patentes ante la presión de la sociedad civil por el acceso a los medicamentos 09/08/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Los legisladores ucranianos están listos para aprobar una ley sobre la reforma radical del sistema de patentes, impulsada en gran parte por la presión de los grupos de pacientes que procuran mejorar el acceso al cuidado de la salud y a los medicamentos a precios asequibles.
Report – Patent Abuse A Leading Cause Of High Drug Prices In US 03/08/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Pharmaceutical companies have created an “untenable” situation by engaging in exploitative patenting practices to extend monopolies, increasing drug prices and delaying competition from more affordable generics, according to a new NGO report analysing drug prices.
AbbVie Hepatitis C Treatment Patents Challenged In India For Evergreening 26/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment The Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK) and the Delhi Network of Positive People (DNP+) filed an opposition with the Indian Patent Office in Delhi on 21 July to prevent the granting of a patent to AbbVie on pibrentasvir, which forms part of Mavyret, their drug used to treat Hepatitis C, according to a press release.
Native Tribes Can’t Shield Patents From USPTO Review 21/07/2018 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment The strategy was breathtaking in its boldness. Just days before the USPTO was to hear a challenge to Allergan Inc.’s patents on a dry-eye drug, Restasis, the company transferred those patents to a Native American tribe; the tribe then sought to dismiss the USPTO proceedings by asserting sovereign immunity. Following this action, a number of other patentees made similar transfers to Native tribes, in order to protect their patents. More patentees were poised to do so, should this ploy prove effective. It, however, did not. On 20 July, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the tribe’s sovereign immunity did not protect its patents from USPTO review. The ruling thus kept intact a key component of America’s patent system.
Oppositions Filed Against Gilead Hepatitis C Patent Applications In India 20/07/2018 by Gaensly Joseph for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Oppositions have been filed in India against two patent applications from US pharmaceutical company Gilead for important hepatitis C medicines, according to non-governmental sources. The opposition filings assert that these applications are “evergreening” patents and therefore violate Indian patent law.
Dangers Of Means Plus Function Limitations In US Patent Prosecution 19/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Broad patent protection is one of the goals when securing patent protection for inventions (i.e., new products and services). However, issues start to arise when the claim language becomes too broad. For example, broad claims might be construed as a means plus function limitation against the intentions of the patent prosecutor, and in some cases, those patents are invalidated as being indefinite. At least, this is the case with US patent prosecution. The patent laws of other jurisdictions treat means plus function style of claiming differently, and in my experience, less detrimental to the validity of the patent, writes James Yang.
Balance Achieved In Future Work For WIPO Patent Law Committee, Delegates Say 13/07/2018 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments The last World Intellectual Property Organization committee before the summer break ended on a happy note this week. After some time spent tweaking the future work of the WIPO committee on the law of patents, delegates appeared satisfied with the balance achieved. The week saw plans for conferences, numerous new proposals and calls for reports, on subjects such as research exceptions, patents and medicines access, compulsory licensing, technology transfer, and patent quality.
Excessive Pricing And Sham Patent Litigation: The Pfizer And AbbVie Decisions 03/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Frederick Abbott writes: Competition law is a critical tool in seeking to maintain some semblance of reasonable pricing in the pharmaceutical market. It is particularly important as legislators around the world appear extremely hesitant to address pharmaceutical pricing in meaningful ways, regrettably influenced by well-funded lobbying. Two recent competition law decisions discussed below illustrate the importance of and challenges to regulating the pharmaceutical sector. In the first, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) partially upheld and partially reversed and remanded (pending briefing) a decision by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fining Pfizer and Flynn close to £90 million for abuse of dominant position in the excessive pricing of an anti-epilepsy drug. The CAT decision is problematic because it creates unnecessary and unwarranted hurdles to findings of excessive pricing in the UK. In the second decision, the US Federal Trade Commission succeeds in proving that AbbVie engaged in abuse of monopoly power by engaging in sham patent litigation against two generic producers in order to delay market entry of competitive products. The Federal District Court found that AbbVie’s patent lawyers by “clear and convincing” evidence had knowingly pursued patent infringement claims without chance of success for no other purpose than to delay market entry.