Comments on: How Pfizer’s Kindler Would Defend Patents

By: Atlex

Atlex — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:35:33 +0000

Pharma PR Hack,

You obviously have very little understanding of the importance of intellectual property. The US government has a significant interest in protecting the IP rights of US companies. Without strong IP rights, all US industries that rely on innovation would have no protection overseas. Without such protections, these companies would cease to operate, thus eliminating jobs and taxes. IP rights are a critical component of US trade policy; insuring that we have the right policies is not only a pharma issue, but an issue for many US industries.

Atlex

By: pharma PR hack

pharma PR hack — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:34:37 +0000

Pfizer is a multinational billion dollar company.

Intellectual property created and licensed by Pfizer–how is that truly a US IP concern.

Pfizer closes R&D in the US and cuts jobs right and left but would like the US government to defend their patents? I.e. foot the bill.

Why is it that the US should pay for defending Pfizer’s patents in say China when Pfizer is actively investing in R&D, doing clinical trials in China. While decreasing investment in the US?

This seems more like Jeff Kindler’s problem than the US senates.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:39 +0000

Lothar, a fair point but most deals (all deals?) done between pharma companies and universities involve payment to the university - usually through its technology transfer office - of a series of milestone payments and, if the drug makes it to market, royalties on sales. What they are buying is the right to develop an early stage compound and that includes patents, know-how and so on. So the pharma or biotech company is paying funds which flow back to the university. How the university uses that money is a different topic.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:29:15 +0000

Thanks for the links to Kindler’s comments. I skimmed through them but haven’t read them in detail yet. Many people outside pharma don’t realize it, but IP laws form the absolute backbone of drug discovery. Without it, every company (other than generics) would collapse within a year. One comment Kindler said seems especially important to the pharma industry: allowing for patent extensions to cover extended periods of regulatory review. A patent provides 21 years of exclusivity. Many people don’t realize it, but a patent is typically filed a year or two before the product ever enters clinical trials. Add 5-8 years of clinical trial and a few years of regulatory review, and the “effective” patent term is down to only about 8-10 years. It’s imperative that the patent office (or their international equivalents) offer extensions when they demand further trials or when they spend years trying to make an approval decision. No other industry (that I’m aware of) faces those type of regulatory hurdles combined with a ticking patent clock.

By: Lothar

Lothar — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:39:34 +0000

Better laws to protect IP are a good thing if the products are really new and effective. What we don´t need are laws to protect the profit margins of pharma companies for medicines that were invented at university laboratories and later licensed by pharma companies. So the public pays twice: by financing the research at the universities and later by paying high prices to big pharma.

By: RKS

RKS — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:45:41 +0000

It is indeed sad to see US ask for more from the global IP regime when it itself is not willing to stand on its commitments - for e.g. Convention for Biodiversity or [on an unrelated note] the Kyoto Protocol.