WIPR survey: readers back TPP data exclusivity period
A five-year period of data exclusivity available for biological drugs, as proposed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is long enough to encourage investment in the field, readers have said.
On October 6, Andrew Robb, minister for trade and investment in Australia, confirmed that the agreed TPP framework will not extend the period of data exclusivity in Australia.
Under Australian law the period of protection for data exclusivity currently stands at five years and it had lobbied to maintain this period. The US, which is spearheading the TPP discussions, had called for the period to be extended to 12 years.
Responding to WIPR’s most recent survey 57% of readers said they thought the five-year term was long enough to encourage investment.
On October 5, the 12 countries participating in the TPP—Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, US, and Vietnam—confirmed that an agreement had been reached.
Among the key provisions of the largely secretive agreement is a chapter on improving harmonisation of intellectual property.
However, details of the deal have not been communicated officially to the public, though the chapter covering IP was released by journalistic organisation WikiLeaks earlier this month.
During the discussions, Australian and US representatives expressed different views on what the length of data exclusivity should be.
Australia, along with New Zealand, said a shorter period would mean biosimilar drugs would enter the market sooner and therefore reduce the price of drugs.
But the US argued that a five-year limit would reduce incentives for biopharmaceutical companies to conduct research for drugs.
All participating countries must now individually ratify the agreement through their national legislative bodies.
This week we ask: “In a judgment handed down on Wednesday, October 7, the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board decided to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs) of two patents owned by VirnetX, despite protestations that the challenger, a hedge fund, filed the petitions in order to ‘manipulate the financial markets’. Are you worried that some parties are abusing the IPR process?”
