Another Letter From Congress Complaining About Pharmaceutical Patents

01 May 2023 PharmaPatents Blog
Author(s): Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

On April 26, 2023, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal sent a letter to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal complaining about the USPTO’s failure “to address the pharmaceutical industry’s abuse of the patent system.” Frustrated by the USPTO’s apparent willingness to grant “excessive patents because of the revenue it collects from patent issuance fees,” the letter provides “specific recommendations, to urge the USPTO to take immediate action and do everything in its power to hold prescription drug companies accountable for their greedy business practices.”


The Warren-Jayapal Recommendations

The letter outlines the following six proposals for the USPTO’s consideration:

1. Revise the USPTO’s practice of granting obvious patents.

This is referring to the grant of patents with claims that are obvious variations of each other on the condition of filing of a terminal disclaimer. The letter mischaracterizes the origin and effects of the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, referring to it as a “loophole.” It’s actually a judicially-created doctrine that poses an additional hurdle to obtaining a patent beyond the statutory requirements.

2. Patents tied together by terminal disclaimers should all stand or fall together when challenged.

This proposal stems from a theory that the sheer number of patents covering a drug—rather than their validity--discourages generics from even trying to enter the market. The drastic nature of this proposal is underscored by 35 USC § 282, which holds that even within the same patent “[e]ach claim … shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims”

3. Raise filing fees and limit the number and time period for continuation applications to discourage “obviousness-type double patents.”

The USPTO already has proposed to increase filing fees for certain continuation applications, but the USPTO’s ability to impose extra-statutory restrictions on continuation applications was challenged in the Tafas v. Dudas dispute. See 511 F. Supp. 2d 652 (E.D. Va. 2007).

4. Require applicants to disclose at the time of filing whether the drug compound covered by the patent application is in clinical trials.

The aim of this proposal is to permit the USPTO to “rigorously examine” patents destined to be listed in the Orange Book and “assign more examiners and apply a more intensive examination.” Would such a practice lead to a stronger presumption of validity?

5. Reverse policies that have led to an increase in discretionary denials of petitions filed through the inter partes review (IPR) process.

This proposal is aimed at the PTAB’s Fintiv denials and the related Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That rulemaking aims to provide “clear, predictable rules … that would provide for discretionary denials of petitions in [specific] categories,” such as petitions filed by certain non-market competitor for-profit entities; petitions challenging under-resourced patent owner patents; petitions challenging patent claims previously upheld against patentability challenges; serial petitions; parallel petitions; and petitions challenging patents involved to ongoing parallel district court litigation.

6. Establish an office dedicated to building public transparency, serving the public interest, and strengthening interagency communication.

Under this proposal, the letter notes:

“Accessing basic information about patents such as expiration dates, owners, licensing, and application statuses is difficult if not impossible for members of the public and even experts, limiting public knowledge and accountability of the U.S. patent system.”

This is true. The USPTO does not even calculate expiration dates, let alone publish them, and determining a patent’s expiration date requires digging deep into USPTO records and an understanding of various patent laws. The USPTO does not collect or publish licensing information, except when patent holders voluntarily record license agreements or voluntarily list their patents as available for licensing on the Patents 4 Partnerships Marketplace website, which currently is available for covid-19-related technologies.

The Warren-Jayapal Recommendations

The Warren-Jayapal letter follows the September 9, 2021 letter from Senators Leahy and Tillis to then-Acting Director Hirshfeld, but is decidedly less balanced. Where Senators Leahy and Tillis recognized that “strong intellectual property rights play an important role in the development of biopharmaceuticals, biosimilars, and treatments that save millions of lives every single year,” Senator Warren and Congresswoman Jayapal barely acknowledge that “pharmaceutical companies have played essential roles in developing and producing lifesaving drugs” after accusing them of having “repeatedly abused the patent system to stifle competition and prolong their market power, showing no regard for the harm done to patients through sustained high prices.”

Congress seems determined to “do something” about pharmaceutical patents, but it could be difficult to address the perceived problems without triggering unintended consequences with far-reaching effects across the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, Congress is not bound by the principle of the Hippocratic oath to first do no harm.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services