tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6607844840598055194..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The pharma sector in Europe: what will become of it?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65938083476358070942009-07-11T17:37:33.279+01:002009-07-11T17:37:33.279+01:00I don't think you know the front end from the ...I don't think you know the front end from the back end of Moggins. This is clearly a cat that was placed tail down into a box that was too small and who now jumps out. We se a front leg (Moggins' arm) and the lower jaw to the right.<br /><br />Or was skeletal contortionism part of the side-effects?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30789979680168930432009-07-09T22:29:47.347+01:002009-07-09T22:29:47.347+01:00That "30% of patent court cases are conducted...That "30% of patent court cases are conducted in parallel in several Member States, and in 11% of cases national courts reach conflicting judgements" means that there is not an urgent need for a community patents. According to this data 70 % of the patent cases remains a national matter. And in only 89 % of the cases where we have proceeding in more than one country regarding a member of the same european patents the outcome is the same. Am i wrong ? Is there a ideological campaign advocating a european jurisdiction in patent matters whitout a real economic need for that ? There other field of law harmonised by community law where the natonal courts play the central role. Nobody complains about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7345896263286544192009-07-09T17:15:53.264+01:002009-07-09T17:15:53.264+01:00In the US being on the market on DAY 1 is a must -...In the US being on the market on DAY 1 is a must - otherwise you are lost - retailers will already have bought supplies. You can be there on Day 1 - FDA will issue you the tentative approval much before.<br /><br />In EU a (Bolar type) directive provides for the same possibilities.<br /><br />The story what is the Day 1 is much more complicated. See the EC report's discussion on primary and secondary patents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62775452456392254662009-07-09T17:02:55.189+01:002009-07-09T17:02:55.189+01:00On the same day, the Commission announced that it ...On the same day, the Commission announced that it had opened formal proceedings against Les Laboratoires Servier and a number of generic pharma companies:<br /><br />http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/322&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en<br /><br />one of the reasons being that the generic companies had the temerity to enter into patent settlements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42452792001077502332009-07-09T16:40:00.795+01:002009-07-09T16:40:00.795+01:00This fits nicely with a review in the current issu...This fits nicely with a review in the current issue of Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, titled 'The 'big pharma' dilemma: develop new drugs or promote existing ones?' (http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v8/n7/full/nrd2923.html).<br /><br />One of my favourite science blogs also discusses it here<br /> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/07/08/how_much_does_the_drug_industry_spend_on_marketing.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48934063865568427482009-07-09T09:57:41.048+01:002009-07-09T09:57:41.048+01:00The €3 billion relate to the sample that was studi...The €3 billion relate to the sample that was studied (a fairly large one, though – 90% of recently new generic medicines according to a press release) and, in each case, to the period between loss of exclusivity and December 2007 (according to para 219). They are thus not directly comparable with annual turnover. My guess is that the extra savings – of which only one part would have resulted from the elimination of anticompetitive practices – represent a fraction of a percent of annual turnover.<br /><br />So it is an even smaller cheese...<br /><br />And are these €6 per European (continentals and islanders together) really an extra saving? Or (profits presumably being untouchable) either less money for investments in R&D or higher prices during the exclusivity period.<br /><br />Other point: the market size is €138 billion ex factory and €214 billion at retail (which includes hospitals which negotiate their prices). The report focusses on "the nasty patent holding pharma industry", to use the (appropriate) words of the first comment, and glosses over a 55% hike and other interesting aspects of the market...<br /><br />Just consider, from one press release: "originator companies also concluded more than 200 settlement agreements with generic companies in the EU..." and ask yourself whether the phrase could or should not be turned round.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87253531525327934442009-07-08T19:08:02.409+01:002009-07-08T19:08:02.409+01:00One can't blame pharma for trying to squeeze a...One can't blame pharma for trying to squeeze a few extra $$ out of a drug and recoup their losses from the regulatory and patent hurdles associated with drug development. If there is actual rstraint of trade, that's a whole different beast.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07177474615563472198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89371298075669830062009-07-08T17:14:03.666+01:002009-07-08T17:14:03.666+01:00So, according to the report, if generics entered t...So, according to the report, if generics entered the market immediately after patent lapse, savings of €3 billion would have resulted. Looked at another way, the savings would have been less than 1.5% of the total market for medicines. Big cheese. What are the realistic chances of generics entereing the market immediately after patent expiry - probably none, reducing the savings to be made. <br /><br />Another aspect - why was the time to market for the highest selling drugs only 4 months compared with the average of 7 (para. 1559)? Would not the nasty patent holding pharma industry have a particular interest in delaying these particular products as long as possible? My take would be that the whole exerciseby the Commission was a simple waste of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com