[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v46y2017i3p693-707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Secondary pharmaceutical patenting: A global perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Sampat, Bhaven N.
  • Shadlen, Kenneth C.
Abstract
Pharmaceutical firms’ use of secondary patents to extend periods of exclusivity generates concerns among policymakers worldwide. In response, some developing countries have introduced measures to curb the grant of these patents. While these measures have received considerable attention, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. We follow a large sample of international patent applications in the US, Japan, the European Patent Office, and corresponding filings in three developing countries with restrictions on secondary patents, India, Brazil, and Argentina. We compare primary vs. secondary grant rates across countries, consider the differential fates of “twin” applications filed in multiple countries, and undertake detailed analyses of patent prosecution in the three developing countries. Our analyses indicate that measures to restrict secondary patents in developing countries are having limited impact. In none of these three countries are specific policies toward secondary patents the principal determinant of grant rates. Our analyses also suggest the importance of other procedural aspects of patent systems, beyond the formal policies targeting secondary applications, that affect outcomes for these applications in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Sampat, Bhaven N. & Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2017. "Secondary pharmaceutical patenting: A global perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 693-707.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:3:p:693-707
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317300057
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amy Kapczynski & Chan Park & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Polymorphs and Prodrugs and Salts (Oh My!): An Empirical Analysis of “Secondary” Pharmaceutical Patents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Mark Duggan & Craig Garthwaite & Aparajita Goyal, 2016. "The Market Impacts of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in Developing Countries: Evidence from India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 99-135, January.
    3. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    4. Josh Lerner, 2002. "150 Years of Patent Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 221-225, May.
    5. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2015. "Drug patenting in India: looking back andlooking forward," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62652, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. María José Abud & Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers, 2015. "An Empirical Analysis of Primary and Secondary Pharmaceutical Patents in Chile," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Jean O. Lanjouw & Ariel Pakes & Jonathan Putnam, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    8. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & William E. Griffiths & Adam B. Jaffe & Elizabeth Webster, 2021. "Low-Quality Patents in the Eye of the Beholder: Evidence from Multiple Examiners," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 607-636.
    9. Kenneth C. Shadlen, 2011. "The Political Contradictions of Incremental Innovation: Lessons from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination in Brazil," Politics & Society, , vol. 39(2), pages 143-174, June.
    10. Keith E. Maskus, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 99, April.
    11. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya, 2014. "Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(2), pages 449-469, June.
    12. Carlos Correa, 2007. "Guidelines for the Examination of Pharmaceutical Patents: Developing a Public Health Perspective," Working Papers id:1203, eSocialSciences.
    13. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:4:p:405-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. C. Scott Hemphill & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2011. "When Do Generics Challenge Drug Patents?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 613-649, December.
    15. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    16. Yamauchi, Isamu & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2015. "An economic analysis of deferred examination system: Evidence from a policy reform in Japan," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 19-28.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mashiho Mihalache & Oli Mihalache & Jan Ende, 2021. "International Diversification and MNE Innovativeness: A Contingency Perspective of Foreign Subsidiary Portfolio Characteristics," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 61(6), pages 769-798, December.
    2. Luis Gil Abinader, 2020. "Pharmaceutical patent examination outcomes in the Dominican Republic," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 385-407, December.
    3. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2020. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," NBER Working Papers 27579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kaplanis, Ioannis, 2020. "The role of international collaborations in securing the patent grant," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    5. Bhaven N Sampat & Kenneth C Shadlen, 2018. "Indian pharmaceutical patent prosecution: The changing role of Section 3(d)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Alexis Habiyaremye, 2022. "Optimal Patent Protection Length for Vital Pharmaceuticals in the Age of COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-16, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luis Gil Abinader, 2020. "Pharmaceutical patent examination outcomes in the Dominican Republic," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 385-407, December.
    2. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kaplanis, Ioannis, 2020. "The role of international collaborations in securing the patent grant," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. Nagaoka, Sadao & Yamauchi, Isamu, 2022. "Information constraints and examination quality in patent offices: The effect of initiation lags," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. NAGAOKA Sadao & YAMAUCHI Isamu, 2017. "Information Constraint of the Patent Office and Examination Quality: Evidence from the effects of initiation lags," Discussion papers 17040, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Emilio Raiteri, 2022. "Technology Protectionism and the Patent System: Evidence from China," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 1-43, March.
    6. Ronald B. Davies & Dieter Franz Kogler & Ryan M. Hynes, 2020. "Patent Boxes and the Success Rate of Applications," Working Papers 202018, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    7. Tetsuo Wada, 2020. "When do the USPTO examiners cite as the EPO examiners? An analysis of examination spillovers through rejection citations at the international family-to-family level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1591-1615, November.
    8. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    9. Bekkers, Rudi & Martinelli, Arianna & Tamagni, Federico, 2020. "The impact of including standards-related documentation in patent prior art: Evidence from an EPO policy change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    10. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    11. Lee Branstetter, 2017. "Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Development: Is Asia Different?," Millennial Asia, , vol. 8(1), pages 5-25, April.
    12. Difei Geng & Kamal Saggi, 2018. "Is there a case for non-discrimination in the international protection of intellectual property?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 5, pages 109-123, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Mai, Joseph & Stoyanov, Andrey, 2019. "Anti-foreign bias in the court: Welfare explanation and evidence from Canadian intellectual property litigations," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 21-36.
    14. Kamal Saggi, 2016. "Trade, Intellectual Property Rights, and the World Trade Organization," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 16-00014, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    15. Bhaven N Sampat & Kenneth C Shadlen, 2018. "Indian pharmaceutical patent prosecution: The changing role of Section 3(d)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    16. Jussi Heikkilä & Michael Verba, 2018. "The role of utility models in patent filing strategies: evidence from European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 689-719, August.
    17. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    18. Tetsuo Wada, 2018. "The choice of examiner patent citations for refusals: evidence from the trilateral offices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 825-843, November.
    19. Lin, Jenny X. & Lincoln, William F., 2017. "Pirate's treasure," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 235-245.
    20. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Antoine Schoen, 2019. "Worldwide IP coverage of patented inventions in large pharma firms: to what extent do the internationalisation of R&D and firm strategy matter?," Post-Print hal-01725229, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pharmaceuticals; Patents; TRIPS; Developing countries; Patent quality; Patent examination;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:3:p:693-707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.