From Patent Thickets to Biosimilar Boom

larger pharmaceutical companies to create dense clusters of overlapping patents, leading to a contentious landscape known as "patent thickets."

From Patent Thickets to Biosimilar Boom
Unsplash Image

The pharmaceutical industry is grappling with a series of intricate challenges that have far-reaching implications for innovation, competition, and patient access to affordable medicines. One prominent issue is the phenomenon of patent thickets, a complex web of overlapping intellectual property rights that has emerged, particularly in the life sciences sector, as a result of the surge in patent legislation during the 1980s. This has allowed larger pharmaceutical companies to create dense clusters of overlapping patents, leading to a contentious landscape known as "patent thickets."

Patent thickets contribute to driving up drug prices, hindering research efforts, and limiting patient access to essential care. A poignant example is the impending expiration of patents for the blockbuster drug Humira, an immunosuppressive medication protected by a staggering 257 overlapping patents. This extensive web impedes the development of affordable generic or similar medicines, adding complexity to an already challenging landscape.

The top five drugs (Humira, Enbrel, Keytruda, Revlimid, and Imbruvica) in the U.S. have accumulated an additional 584 patent applications post-FDA approval, further complicating the challenges posed by patent thickets. The complexity introduced by patent thickets not only raises costs but also significantly slows down research, ultimately leading to higher drug prices and delays in bringing new treatments to patients.

Efforts to address the impact of patent thickets on innovation and competition have been met with ongoing debate. While some argue that cross-licensing can balance out costs, concerns persist regarding entry barriers for companies lacking substantial patent portfolios. The transaction costs associated with navigating patent thickets, including filing fees and legal expenses, contribute significantly to the overall expense of research and development (R&D) in the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to these challenges, there have been considerations to reduce costs by increasing the scrutiny and cost of obtaining patents. The explosion in patent applications has led to concerns about the quality of patents, leading to debates on finding a balance between filing costs and ensuring patent quality. The global variation in patent systems adds a layer of complexity, with attempts at harmonisation facing numerous challenges.

In this competitive landscape, patent portfolios have become valuable assets, influencing business strategies and prompting acquisitions for the sake of gaining negotiating power. Non-practising entities, entities that accumulate patents without engaging in product markets, strategically leverage the intricate patent environment by threatening legal action, creating uncertainty for active industry players.

The case of Enbrel provides an excellent example of the complex interplay between legal strategies, regulatory frameworks, and financial interests within the pharmaceutical industry. Enbrel is an arthritis drug that was developed in the late 1980s by scientist Bruce Beutler of the University of Texas. Since then, it has gone on to generate cumulative sales of over $74 billion as of 2021. Despite being initially sought for a patent 37 years ago, and 17 years after its expiration, Enbrel may still face competition in the United States. This is due to Amgen's strategic use of a "patent thicket," which involves layering intellectual property protection beyond the standard 20-year patent term. This creates formidable barriers for potential competitors, particularly in the case of complex biological drugs like Enbrel. Amgen's aggressive approach to fortifying its intellectual property includes numerous patents covering manufacturing processes, formulation, methods of use, and administration devices. This strategy has played a crucial role in extending Enbrel's exclusivity, highlighting the profitability of stretching patents beyond their intended duration. Overall, the case of Enbrel demonstrates the importance of intellectual property for pharmaceutical companies and the significant financial interests at stake in this industry.

In 2010, the U.S. government tried to promote cheaper alternatives to biologic drugs with the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. However, biosimilars like Novartis' Erelzi faced significant challenges due to Amgen's patent thicket. After legal battles, Amgen was able to maintain its monopoly on Enbrel in the U.S. until 2029. Now, policymakers are examining the impact of patent blockades on drug prices. Proposed bills aim to limit the number and types of patents that biologic drug makers can use against biosimilar developers. The Biden administration has shown interest in scrutinising patent blockades, which could change the pharmaceutical industry.

Another example that highlights the significance of strategic patent and pricing practices is AbbVie's immunosuppressive drug, Adalimumab, commonly known as Humira. The success of Humira is not solely due to its therapeutic benefits but also AbbVie's strategic use of a dense patent portfolio. By surrounding Humira with a comprehensive patent thicket, AbbVie has made it difficult for competitors to replicate the drug without infringing on its intellectual property rights.

Humira became the top-selling drug globally by 2013, generating $10.7 billion in sales. Projections indicate that the drug will generate an astounding $240 billion in revenue by 2024. However, critics argue that AbbVie's aggressive pricing practices, such as a 30-time increase in the drug's price over two decades, have contributed more to maintaining market dominance than groundbreaking innovation. A significant portion of AbbVie's reported research expenditures has been allocated to preserving its monopoly instead of fostering new developments.

The pharmaceutical industry is currently undergoing a significant transformation with the impending expiration of patents for key drugs, leading to the introduction of biosimilars. Industry giants such as Johnson & Johnson, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Roche, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, and Supernus Pharmaceuticals are strategically addressing these challenges, aiming to balance maintaining market dominance while preparing for the influx of biosimilar competition.

For instance, Johnson & Johnson anticipation of the loss of patent protection for its flagship drug, Stelara, in late 2023 opened the door for biosimilar competitors such as Biocon Biologics and Amgen. Despite the looming threat, Johnson & Johnson remains ambitious, setting a lofty sales target of $60 billion by 2025 and demonstrating a commitment to maximising Stelara's potential before its expected loss of exclusivity. Similarly, Takeda Pharmaceutical lost exclusivity for Vyvanse, a key ADHD treatment, in August 2023. Acknowledging the potential sales impact, Takeda plans to offset the decline by relying on other key drugs like Entyvio and Takhzyro, showcasing adaptability in response to changing market dynamics.

In addition, various pharmaceutical companies are strategically navigating challenges posed by biosimilar competition in different therapeutic areas. For example, Sanofi is proactively planning for the generic entry of Aubagio, a multiple sclerosis therapy, in March 2023. Facing market pressure and declining sales for Aubagio, Sanofi is redirecting its focus to the success of Dupixent and other new launches, signalling a proactive response to market challenges and a commitment to sustaining overall revenue momentum. Roche, a pharmaceutical giant, is preparing for the end of U.S. exclusivity for Actemra, an IL-6 inhibitor with biosimilar competition expected in the second half of 2023. Despite Actemra experiencing a sales boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, Roche is diversifying its portfolio with drugs like Ocrevus, Hemlibra, and Tecentriq to counteract potential revenue losses.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals navigated the impact of generic competition for Xyrem, used to treat narcolepsy, by promoting a low-sodium alternative, Xywav, and diversifying its portfolio through strategic acquisitions. AstraZeneca, faced uncertainties with Symbicort, a respiratory medication, is focused on next-gen respiratory products alongside biologics to maintain a strong foothold in the respiratory medicine market. Supernus Pharmaceuticals proactively mitigated the impact of generic competition for Trokendi XR through strategic acquisitions and the introduction of new drugs.

As these pharmaceutical companies face the challenges posed by patent expirations and biosimilar competition, their strategic responses reflect a nuanced understanding of the market dynamics. From diversification to legal manoeuvres, these giants are adapting to the evolving landscape, showcasing resilience and innovation in sustaining their market positions. The interplay between legal strategies, regulatory frameworks, and financial interests highlights the complexity of the pharmaceutical industry and sets the stage for a dynamic future.

Keywords: pharmaceutical industry, patent thickets, intellectual property rights, biosimilar competition, drug pricing, patent expirations, industry strategies, case studies, market dynamics, innovation, competition, patient access, regulatory frameworks, legal strategies, biosimilars, strategic responses, pharmaceutical giants, market resilience, industry transformation