Regulatory analysis reveals paucity of patent disclosure in brand biologic listings, suggesting prospective biosimilar makers face unassessed litigation risks.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains 2 lists of drugs approved in the United States-the Orange Book for small-molecule drugs and the Purple Book for large-molecule drugs.• US law requires that each application for approval of a small-molecule drug disclose the patents protecting the drug and mandates publication of the information in the Orange Book.• US law, however, imposes no patent-disclosure requirement on any application for approval of a large-molecule drug.Instead, US law requires that a brand biologic company disclose its patents-and that those patents are published in the Purple Book-only after a biosimilar applies for approval, and even then, only if rights negotiations between the brand and biosimilar reach a certain stage.• This legal regime for large-molecule drugs has led to remarkably little patent disclosure in the Purple Book: Only approximately 2% of the brand biologic listings in the Purple Book contain patent information.In comparison, the percentage of small-molecule drugs disclosing patent information in the Orange Book is 21 times greater.• Given that the Purple Book lists so little patent information about brand biologic drugs, a prospective biosimilar maker cannot readily assess its risk of patent infringement litigation, and so must make investment and manufacturing decisions blindly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robin Feldman (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: