Patent reforms will prevent big Pharma from exploiting the patent system

[Ryan Cooper, 6-6-23, American Prospect managing editor and The Week national correspondent, The American Prospect, “How Big Pharma Rigged the Patent System,” , accessed: 7-7-24, ES]

What should be done about this? Feldman suggests that one simple step would be to clarify the meaning of “non-obviousness” in U.S. patent law. To obtain a patent, one must demonstrate that the invention is something that required skill and effort to produce. There is a lot of legislation in this area, as well as a large body of case law, the details of which are beyond the scope of this article. But clearly it is far too easy to get a drug patent in this country, as shown by how many fewer patents are awarded in the European Union. In the U.S., companies can get patents on stone obvious ideas like “an extended-release formula” that have been well known for decades. The USPTO could also be better funded; its small staff is frequently overwhelmed by drug companies’ blizzard of highly technical filings. The FDA, which has many more medical specialists, might also be assigned to help in this area.

Another more radical idea is a “one and done” patent system. This would outright forbid companies from obtaining more than one patent on the same drug. They would be able to choose between a normal patent, or one of the other exclusivities mentioned above, but not more than one. That would solve the problem at a stroke.

Now, these are pretty small-bore and slow reforms. But they are still the biggest defeats Big Pharma has suffered in decades. Drug prices (like the rest of the health care system) are simply so outrageous that even the rickety American government is starting to do something about them. Patent reform is the obvious next step.