• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Panel 2  kevin outterson
 

Panel 2 kevin outterson

on

  • 426 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
426
Views on SlideShare
426
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Panel 2  kevin outterson Panel 2 kevin outterson Presentation Transcript

    • Pharmaceutical Patent Policy Options For Brazil Kevin Outterson mko@bu.edu Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law 1
    • Topics • Patent Failure • Pharmaceuticals • ACTA 2
    • Topics • Patent Failure • Pharmaceuticals • ACTA 3
    • Why don’t patents work like property? Land Patents • Registry, third party • Hidden claims, low quality verification, deference to opinion letters, little fact-finders deference • Physical possession • Scope broader than • Low risk of invalidity, title embodiments; patents and insurance claims are cheap • No insurance, relatively high risk of invalidity Bessen & Meurer, BU Law: Patent Failure
    • The Notice Function of Property Law ? An expensive mistake! 5
    • Notice Function of Patent Law Kodak v. Polaroid • Failed attempt to invent around • Patent review started seven years before product launched • 250 patents reviewed, “67 written and countless oral opinions” • 50 potential imaging chemistries reviewed • $900 million damages and interest (1980s) 6
    • Evidence Suggests Much Infringement Is Inadvertent • Defendants are large, spend a lot on R&D, and obtain a lot of patents (not classic pirates or free riders) – only 4% are found to be copyists • Increasing R&D increases hazard of lawsuit 7
    • E-Data Lawsuits • Freeny invented retail kiosk that would produce music recorded on cassette tapes • Patent claim language was abstract, possibly covered all sales over the internet • E-Data got the Freeny patent and asserted it against 75,000 e-commerce sites, licensed 139 companies, and filed 43 lawsuits • Poor notice because meaning of claim language was unstable • “Material object” (1980: cassette tape, 2000: hard drive?) • “Point-of-sale location” (1980: store, 2000: home?) 8
    • Search Cost • Patent flood – E-commerce firm faces b/w 4000 – 11,000 patents – Semiconductor firm faces hundreds of patents – 3G standard 7600 patents • Perverse willfulness doctrine • “Distant” plaintiffs 9
    • Parties to Lawsuit Same primary industry No industry overlap 29% 28% Weakly overlapping industries 43% Patent Failure 10
    • Evidence on search • Cockburn & Henderson survey: – 65% of firms do not conduct a patent search before initiating product development • 39% of applicants disclose zero prior art patents (research personnel told not to read patents) 11
    • Patent Lawsuits Filed in U.S. District Courts 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 2004 2006 12
    • Litigation Growth Suits/R&D ($b): 1987: 1.7 1999: 2.9 Patent Failure 13
    • Pharma Offers Clearer Notice • Lipitor: Trans-6-[2-(3- or 4-carboxamido- substituted pyrrol-1-yl)alkyl]-4-hydroxypyran-2- ones • Olanzapine: Patent Failure 14
    • Technology Differences Suggest Notice Problems Probability Claim Con- Value suit/patent struction ($1,000) All 2.0% 1.00 78 Chemical 1.1% 0.84 333 Biotech 3.2% 2.37 NA SW 4.6% 2.18 55 BM 13.7% 6.67 NA
    • Patent Reform to Improve Notice • Make patents more transparent – continuation reform – better disclosure • Better claim interpretation – Specialized trial courts – Expand PTO claim construction activity – More deference to PTO and trial courts • Robust definiteness requirement • Limit remedies against innocent infringers
    • Helpful Steps by Courts • eBay -- increases bargaining power of defendants and reduces “patent tax” • Seagate -- decreases deterrent to patent clearance • Festo -- improves scope clarity • KSR, In re Fisher -- stem patent flood • In re Bilski -- decreases abstract claiming 17
    • Implications for Brazil • Don’t accept US IP law as the gold standard • Don’t accept standards tougher than US law • Look for local allies – industries that might not be IP maximalists
    • Pharmaceuticals • Patent Failure • Pharmaceuticals • ACTA 19
    • Static v. Dynamic Effects • Static losses from higher prices • Dynamic gains from sales incentivizing R&D • US deploys many balancing features 20
    • Static v. Dynamic: Global • Static losses are higher and dynamic losses are lower in poorer countries (FM Scherer & others) • Welfare losses from differential pricing failures are greater in countries with higher Gini coefficients (Flynn, Hollis, Palmedo, JLME 2009) 21
    • Bottom Line: Countries should exercise significant flexibilities in Rx patents based on wealth & inequality 22
    • US Rx Policy Debates • Hatch-Waxman generic entry & regulatory linkage in FTAs • Biosimilar legislative debate in US Congress: 5 v. 12 years of DE • Ebay = liability rule = CL • KSR & progeny = nonobviousness • Reimbursement 23
    • Bottom Line: • Don’t accept anything stronger than current US law • Evaluate US IP flexibilities 24
    • Post-TRIPS Rx Options 1 • Pipeline patents (Cendrowski, 2009) • Article 31 CL (scope) (Outterson, 2009) • Parallel importation/global exhaustion rule (Outterson, 2005) • Functional Article 31bis (Abbott & Reichman JEL 2007; Goodwin AJLM 2008) • Prizes (Love & Hubbard; Hollis & Pogge) 25
    • Post-TRIPS Rx Options 2 • Promote generics –Reduce evergreening –Improve generic quality –Automatic substitution –Insurance reimbursement rules –Collusive settlements 26
    • Post-TRIPS Rx Options 3 • Reverse linkage • Global Orange Book • Regional drug registration • Liability rules (Ebay) • Scope & obviousness 27
    • Post-TRIPS Rx Options 4 • Reimbursement (Outterson & Kesselheim 2009; Frank & Newhouse 2008) • Conditions on clinical trials (HPV) • Conflicts of interest in medicine & research • Conditions on university licenses (UAEM)
    • Regime Shifting II • Patent Failure • Pharmaceuticals • ACTA 29
    • ACTA • Supplements WTO judicial model with private enforcement • Drive for substantive harmonization • Secret negotiations – 18th Century diplomatic model 30
    • ACTA • Improperly conflates trademark, pharmaceutical safety, patent disputes (Outterson & Smith 2006; Outterson 2009) • Dutch seizures of losartan & AIDS medicines • Goal is to hinder legal parallel trade & CL in pharmaceuticals
    • Bottom Line: • No assurance that global public health is a priority in ACTA • Transparency • Carve out pharmaceuticals & patents • Sean Flynn @ American University - Law
    • Papers at ssrn.com Kevin Outterson mko@bu.edu Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law 33