PFIZER INC. | Extended patent exclusivities and product access at PFIZER INC.

Status
30.19% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
8
Resolution details
Company ticker
PFE
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Public health
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Health Care
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED, that shareholders of Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) ask the Board of Directors to establish and report on a process by which the impact of extended patent exclusivities on product access would be considered in deciding whether to apply for secondary and tertiary patents. Secondary and tertiary patents are patents applied for after the main active ingredient/molecule patent(s) and which relate to the product. The report on the process should be prepared at reasonable cost, omitting confidential and proprietary information, and published on Pfizer’s website.
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement
Access to medicines, especially costly specialty drugs, is the subject of consistent and widespread public debate in the U.S. A 2021 Rand Corporation analysis concluded that U.S. prices for branded drugs were nearly 3.5 times higher than prices in 32 OECD member countries.[1] The Kaiser Family Foundation has “consistently found prescription drug costs to be an important health policy area of public interest and public concern.”[2]
This high level of concern has driven policy responses. The Inflation Reduction Act empowers the federal government to negotiate some drug prices.[3] State measures, including drug price transparency legislation, copay caps, and Medicaid purchasing programs, have also been adopted.[4] The House Committee on Oversight and Reform (the “Committee”) launched a far-reaching investigation into drug pricing in January 2019.[5]
Intellectual property protections on branded drugs play an important role in maintaining high prices and impeding access. When patent protection on a drug ends, generic manufacturers can enter the market, reducing prices. But branded drug manufacturers may try to delay generic competition by extending their exclusivity periods.
Among the abuses described in the Committee’s December 2021 report is construction of a “patent thicket,” which consists of many “secondary patents covering the formulations, dosing, or methods of using, administering, or manufacturing a drug”; they are granted after the drug’s primary patent, covering its main active ingredient or molecule, has been granted.[6] In June 2022, citing the impact of patent thickets on drug prices, a bipartisan group of Senators urged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to “take regulatory steps to . . . eliminate large collections of patents on a single invention.”
Pfizer sells Lyrica, a branded pain management and epilepsy drug. According to the Committee’s report, 69 patents have been granted on Lyrica, which extended Pfizer’s exclusivity period to 32 years. Pfizer raised the price of Lyrica by 155% between 2013 and 2019, when its exclusivity period on the immediate release formulation of Lyrica ended.[7]
In our view, a process that considers the impact of extended exclusivity periods on patient access would ensure that Pfizer considers not only whether it can apply for secondary and tertiary patents but also whether it should do so. A more thoughtful process could, we believe, bolster Pfizer’s reputation and help avoid regulatory blowback resulting from high drug prices and perceptions regarding abusive patenting practices.
[1]  https://www.rand.org/news/press/2021/01/28.html
[2]  https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/
[3]  https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/explaining-the-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/
[4]  https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-policies-to-address-prescription-drug-affordability-across-the-supply-chain/
[5] https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDIX%20v3.pdf, at i.
[6] https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDIX%20v3.pdf, at 79.
[7] https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDIX%20v3.pdf, at ix, 14.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation nameDeclared voting intentionsRationale
Rothschild & co Asset ManagementFor
Anima SgrForPfizer faces potential controversies related to its alleged anti-competitive behavior, which could be increasing its legal and regulatory risk. Given the increasing scrutiny of the patent thicket strategy, shareholders would benefit from additional information on the processes and oversight mechanisms the company has in place to effectively manage related risks. As such, support for this proposal is warranted.
KBI Global InvestorsFor
Kutxabank Gestion SGIIC SAU.Against

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.