When India’s Supreme Court ruled in April that Novartis AG’s cancer drug Gleevec was not sufficiently innovative to merit a patent, public health advocates lauded the decision. They said that it would give more people access to needed drugs. Predictably, Big Pharma condemned it, saying that it would stifle innovation.
The court’s decision, however, was not about innovation or access. It revolved around a practice the pharmaceutical industry refers to as "life-cycle management," which public health advocates call "evergreening." Pharmaceutical companies periodically make small changes to a patented drug and then apply for a new patent on the modified version. This strategy, which is common in the United States, essentially extends the term of a drug’s patent, prolonging the time in which patent protection can ensure exclusive rights and precluding competition from generic drug manufacturers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
