Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:21:01.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intellectual Property

Patent Pools and Collaborative Initiatives: Assessing the Efficacy of Alternatives to IP in the Development of New Pharmaceutical Drugs, Especially for Neglected Diseases – An Empirical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Meir Perez Pugatch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the issue of risk in research and development (R&D) pertaining to new pharmaceuticals, especially those aimed at neglected diseases and/ or relevant primarily to the developing world. In particular, the article considers the role of patent pools and other forms of non-proprietary models as alternatives to patents (and other types of intellectual property rights) in R&D for new pharmaceuticals. The article concludes that that these mechanisms still achieve very little output and can therefore not currently be considered as viable alternatives to the use of patents in pharmaceutical R&D. Another relevant finding is that many of the existing collaborative initiatives and partnerships for R&D in neglected diseases actually rely on different forms of intellectual property rights.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 566 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PhRMA (2011), “Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2011”, Inside cover, available on the Internet at <http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/159/phrma_profile_2011_final.pdf> (last accessed on 27 October 2011).

2 Grabowski, H., Patents and New Product Development in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries (Duke University, July 2002), p. 5 and Figure 1Google Scholar; Data is adjusted to 2003 R&D expenditures.

3 Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (2008), “Growing Protocol Design Complexity Stresses Investigators, Volunteers”, Impact Report 10, No. 1.

4 Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (2006), “New Drugs Entering Clinical Testing in Top 10 Firms Jumped 52% in 2003–2005”, Impact Report 8, No.3.

5 Mansfield, E., “Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study”, 32(2) Management Science (1986), pp. 173–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 IMS Health (2008), MIDAS MAT.

7 PricewaterhouseCoopers (2011), “Pharma 2020 – the vision”, available on the Internet at <http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/pharma-life-sciences/pharma-2020/pharma-2020-vision-path.jhtml> (last accessed on 27 October 2011).

8 WHO (2008), Global strategy and plan of action on public health innovation and intellectual property, p. 14, available on the Internet at <http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A61/A61_R21-en.pdf> (last accessed on 27 October 2011).

9 WHO, Global strategy and plan of action on public health innovation and intellectual property, supra note 8, p. 16.