Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
The New
York Times
View Related Topics
May 21, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
Correction Appended
SECTION: Section 1; Page
37; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk
LENGTH:
778 words
HEADLINE: Columbia Gets Help From Alumnus on
Patent Extension
BYLINE:
By ANDREW POLLACK
BODY:
Columbia
University has enlisted an alumnus in the United States Senate to sponsor
legislation that would extend the life of an important biotechnology patent that
brings the university about $100 million a year in revenue.
The alumnus,
Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican and member of the class of '69, attached
an amendment permitting the extension to an agricultural spending bill that has
already been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, which he heads.
But the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have objected to the
patent extension, and one senator has vowed to try to kill it
on the Senate floor.
The patent covers a technique that allows animal
cells to be used to manufacture proteins used as drugs. The patent has been used
to produce many of the biotechnology industry's best-selling drugs, like Amgen's
Epogen for anemia and Immunex Corporation's Enbrel for rheumatoid arthritis.
Columbia gets a royalty of 1 percent of the sales of such drugs and has
collected $280 million since the patent was granted in 1983, with more coming in
each year as the sales of the drugs have grown. But the patent, one of
Columbia's largest sources of money for research, expires in August, prompting
the university to scramble for a reprieve.
Michael M. Crow, executive
vice provost of Columbia, said the university expected that under the proposed
legislation, it would be entitled to an extension of 14 to 18 months, which
would bring the university about $150 million in revenue. About 20 percent of
the royalties go to the four scientists who invented the process and the rest go
toward university research.
But the Biotechnology Industry Organization
said the legislation would provide an "unjustified windfall" to Columbia and the
wording of the provision could allow an extension of up to five years that would
affect at least 18 existing drugs. In a letter sent Monday to Senator Orrin G.
Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and co-author of a law covering
drug patents, the industry lobbying organization said law regarding drug patents
should be subject to hearings.
Columbia and Senator Gregg said that in
seeking the extension, they were trying to correct what they see as an inequity
in the law covering drug patents. Under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act, companies can
apply for an extension for a drug patent to compensate for delays in getting the
product approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
But Columbia's
patent covers a process used to make drugs -- not a drug itself -- and so it is
not eligible for an extension under the act. The university contends that
because the drugs made with its process, known as cotransformation, did
experience regulatory delays, Columbia's royalties were reduced and it, too,
should be entitled to a patent extension. The university said the money would be
plowed into research and education, which would benefit the public.
"Patents like the Columbia University cotransformation patent should be
eligible for patent extensions just like any other drug patent," Senator Gregg
said in a statement, according to Bloomberg News. "This is an inequity my
amendment addresses."
Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from
Illinois, said he would move to strike the patent provision if it gets to the
Senate floor.
Melissa Merz, a spokeswoman for Senator Durbin, said the
patent royalties would mean higher prices for consumers. She added that the
money to develop the patented technique came from federal research grants. "This
is not their investment," she said. "This is the taxpayers' investment."
Dr. Crow of Columbia said that a 1 percent royalty does not contribute
significantly to consumer prices and that the research benefits the public. He
said the money is vital to Columbia because, unlike government and industry
grants, it is not tied to specific projects. "We are able to do some things that
none of our other resources allows us to do," he said.
Columbia, which
spends about $400 million a year on research, began seeking the extension last
fall after it learned that companies producing drugs using its patent were
seeking extensions under the Hatch-Waxman Act, Dr. Crow said.
Despite
their objections to Columbia's effort, pharmaceutical companies themselves often
try to win patent extensions from Congress to stave off competition from cheaper
generic drugs. It is usually attempted by a congressman who quietly attaches the
extension to some other legislation.
The Schering-Plough Corporation,
for example, has spent millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign
contributions seeking an extension for Claritin, its allergy drug.
http://www.nytimes.com
CORRECTION-DATE: May 23,
2000, Tuesday
CORRECTION:
Because of an editing
error, an article in some copies on Sunday about Columbia University's efforts
to extend a biotechnology patent misidentified the committee role of Senator
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who has attached an amendment for that purpose to
an agricultural spending bill. He is chairman of a Senate Appropriations
subcommittee, not of the Appropriations Committee.
LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2000
