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 and Medicaid purchasing programs, have also been adopted.4 The House Committee on Oversight and Reform (the “Committee”) launched an 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 a drug’s patent protection ends, generic manufacturers can enter the market, reducing prices. But branded drug manufacturers may try to delay competition by extending their exclusivity periods.
Among the abuses described by 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” granted after the drug’s primary patent, covering its main active ingredient or molecule, has been granted. 6 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, partly in response to a letter from six U.S. Senators requesting measures to address patent thickets,7 recently issued a request for public comment on initiatives to “adequately protect[] innovation while not unnecessarily delaying generic and biosimilar competition.”8
Regeneron markets Eylea, which treats eye disorders. According to I-MAK, of the 135 patent applications filed on Eylea, 65% were filed after the drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration.9 According to I-MAK, such post-approval filings “indicat[e] an attempt to prolong existing exclusivity.”10
In our view, a process that considers the impact of extended exclusivity periods on patient access would ensure that Regeneron considers not only whether it can apply for secondary and tertiary patents but also whether it should do so. Regeneron’s current approach subjects the company to reputational risks and potential regulatory blowback resulting from high drug prices and perceptions regarding abusive patenting practices.
1 www.rand.org/news/press/2021/01/28.html2 www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/3 www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/explaining-the-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/4 www.americanprogress.org/article/state-policies-to-address-prescription-drug-affordability-across-the-supply-chain/5 oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20AP PENDIX%20v3.pdf, at i.6oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20AP PENDIX%20v3.pdf, at 79.7 www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/20220608%20Letter%20to%20PTO%20on%20repetitive%20patents.pdf8 www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-10-04/pdf/2022-21481.pdf9 www.i-mak.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Overpatented-Overpriced-2022-FINAL.pdf, at 6.10 www.i-mak.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Overpatented-Overpriced-2022-FINAL.pdf, at 6.