Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

UPJOHN’s ANSAID PATENT EXTENSION BILL WILL BE CONSIDERED

Executive Summary

UPJOHN's ANSAID PATENT EXTENSION BILL WILL BE CONSIDERED by the House Judiciary Committee shortly after the release of a General Accounting Office analysis of the legislation (HR 2255), which is anticipated in early April. The bill, which would extend the patent for the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug flurbiprofen beyond its scheduled February 1993 expiration, is pending in the Judiciary/Intellectual Property Subcommittee. If GAO supports extending the Ansaid patent, a subcommittee or full committee markup could be scheduled by mid-April. If GAO recommends against patent extension, further hearings are likely to be scheduled to provide Upjohn opportunity to rebut the report. Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Hughes (D-N.J.), who held a hearing on the issue last autumn ("The Pink Sheet" Nov. 4, 1991, p. 10), has taken no position on the legislation. Judiciary Committee Chairman Brooks (D-Texas) made a commitment to take action on the legislation after meeting with Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell (D-Mich.) on March 23. Dingell had been considering offering a substitute to legislation reauthorizing the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration (HR 3698); the substitute would have included a provision to extend the patent of Ansaid. On March 24, after Brooks met with Dingell, the Michigan Democrat offered HR 3698 without the substitute amendment, and the House passed it by voice vote under suspension of the rules, without debate. Sen. Levin, another Michigan Democrat, attempted a similar procedural tactic late in the last Congress. Levin inserted an Ansaid patent extension provision in the 1990 medical device legislation; the provision was deleted before the Senate passed the device bill. However, there is a key difference between the House and Senate maneuvers: Levin needed unanimous consent for the Senate to accept his addition; Dingell would have required only a two-thirds or greater House majority for passage of his substitute under suspension of the rules. Members of the Judiciary Committees, which have jurisdiction over patent legislation, generally oppose market protection legislation not considered within their committee. Like House subcommittee chairman Hughes, Senate Judiciary/Patents Subcommittee Chairman DeConcini (D-Ariz.) has held a hearing on a Senate Ansaid patent extension bill (S 1165) but neither has endorsed nor opposed the measure. S 1165 was introduced by Sen. Levin and its cosponsors include Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) and Heflin (D-Ala.). HR 2255 was introduced by Rep. Boucher (D-Va.) and has 28 cosponsors.

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT125529

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel