Copyright 1999 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
November 10, 1999, Wednesday, Final Edition
SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A38; LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LENGTH: 276 words
HEADLINE:
Patently Unfair to Drug Companies
BODY:
"Patent Fight Tests
Drug Firm's Clout" [front page, Oct. 30] outlined a
drug company's lobbying efforts without focusing on why
politicians might conclude that the company had a point.
Patent laws offer an inventor the exclusive right to
sell a product for a limited period. Until recently, this period ended 17 years
after the patent was issued. A drug company,
however, cannot sell its product until it obtains Food and Drug
Administration approval. The patent term ticks away until the
company is able to prove to the FDA's satisfaction that the product is safe and
effective.
The Post's article said that patent
extensions of up to five years can be obtained for
drugs, and pointed out that the drug in
question, Schering-Plough's Claritin, received a two-year
extension that is scheduled to expire in 2002. Delayed FDA
approval meant that the company could sell Claritin under
patent protection for only nine years. Eight years of
patent protection were effectively lopped off due to FDA
delays.
The article said that the drug company is
lobbying for a bill to create a special patent review board
that would have authority to grant the full five-year extension
for drug patents. Even if the new review board is created, and
even if the company also wins its case before the new board, the result would be
only 12 years of effective patent protection.
As a
patent lawyer, I believe that a drug company
that has lost almost half of its patent term due to
bureaucratic delays has a right to petition Congress to establish a
patent review board with authority to restore part of the lost
term.
ALLEN WOOD
Arlington
LOAD-DATE: November 10, 1999
