Seoul Journal of Economics - Vol. 26 , No. 1

[ Article ]
Seoul Journal of Economics - Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 95-112
Abbreviation: SJE
ISSN: 1225-0279 (Print)
Print publication date 28 Feb 2013
Received 16 Sep 2012 Revised 21 Dec 2012 Accepted 15 Jan 2013

Flexible Drug Patent Terms: A Proposed Mechanism to Stimulate Global Innovation and Health
Benjamin Charles Warren
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Liu Institute for Global Issues, Faculty of Arts & Honorary Post-Doctoral Fellow, School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 6476 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, V6 T 1Z2, Canada, Tel: +1-778-999-2891 (bwarren@mail.ubc.ca)

JEL Classification: O31, O34, O38


A major problem for humankind rests in the seemingly unresolvable competing vested interests found within the global patent system. Adequate access to medicines, particularly in developing countries, is necessary to promote health and ultimately, economic development, but the prolonged time period required for the successful R&D of novel products to make medicines available (one component of accessibility) means that private sector actors must be incentivized by being awarded exclusivity rights. This comes at the expense of affordability (the other component of accessibility). Clearly, reform proposals need to facilitate the finding of the balance that needs to be struck between incentives for drug development and access to medicines. This paper presents a theoretical proposal for global drug patent system reform that attempts to find the balance between these interests in the form of flexible patent terms.

Keywords: Patent system, Intellectual property, Innovation, Access to medicines

1. Anthon, C. A Classical Dictionary: Containing an Account of the Principal Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors, and Intended to Elucidate All the Important Points Connected with the Geography, History, Biography, Mythology, and Fine Arts of the Greeks and Roma. New York: Harper, 1881.
2. Birkett, D. J. “Generics ― Equal or Not?” Australian Prescriber 26 (2003): 85-7.
3. Brooks, K. “CRO Industry Update: Growth, Expansion, and New Opportunities.” Contract Pharma, May 2006.
4. Cohen, J. C. Canada and Brazil Dealing with Tension between Ensuring Access to Medicines and Complying with Pharmaceutical Patent Standards: Is the Story the Same? Comparative Programme on Health and Society Working Paper Series, 2003.
5. Cohen-Kohler, J. C. “The Morally Uncomfortable Global Drug Gap.” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 82 (No. 5 2007): 610-14.
6. Correa, C. Guidelines for the Examination of Pharmaceutical Patents: Developing a Public Health Perspective. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2007.
7. Danzon, P., and Furukawa, M. Cross-national Evidence on Generic Pharmaceuticals: Pharmacy vs. Physician-driven Markets. NBER Working Paper 17226, 2011.
8. Danzon, P. M., and Towse, A. “Differential Pricing for Pharmaceuticals: Reconciling Access, R&D and Patents.” International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 3 (No. 3 2003): 183-205.
9. Etheredge, L. M. “A Rapid-learning Health System.” Health Affairs 26 (No. 2 2007): w107-18.
10. Getz, K. A. “Insights from today's CRO Renaissance.” Applied Clinical Trials 15 (No. 6 2006): 48.
11. Hemphill, C. Scott, and Sampat, Bhaven N. “Evergreening, Patent Challenges, and Effective Market Life in Pharmaceuticals.” Journal of Health Economics 31 (No. 2 2012): 327-39.
12. Hertz, A. Z. “Shaping the Trident: Intellectual Property under NAFTA, Investment Protection Agreements and at the World Trade Organization.” Canada-United States Law Journal 23 (1997): 261-325.
13. Higgins, M. J., and Graham, S. J. H. “Balancing Innovation and Access: Patent Challenges Tip the Scales.” Science 326 (No. 5951 2009): 370-1.
14. Hore, E. “Comparison of United States and Canadian Laws as They Affect Generic Pharmaceutical Market Entry.” Food & Drug Law Journal 55 (No. 3 2000): 373-88.
15. Imam, A. “Reconciling the FTAA and TRIPS: Can a Free Trade Area of the Americas Be a Fair Trade Area of the Americas-Implications of a Hemispheric Intellectual Property Agenda.” Loyola University Chicago International Law Review 1 (2003): 217.
16. Lexchin, J. “Are Drugs Too Expensive in Canada? Yes.” Canadian Family Physician 52 (No. 5 2006): 573-6.
17. Lippert, O. “One Trip to the Dentist Is Enough: Reasons to Strengthen Intellectual Property Rights through the Free Trade Area of the Americas.” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 9 (1998): 241-300.
18. Merges, R. P., and Duffy, J. F. Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials 2, 3rd ed., Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, 2002.
19. Mokyr, Joel. “Technological Progress and the Decline of European Mortality.” American Economic Review 83 (No. 2 1993): 324-30.
20. OECD Health Policy Studies. Pharmaceutical Pricing Polices in a Global Market. 2008.
21. Rasiah, R., and Govindaraju, VGR C. “University-Industry Collaboration in the Automotive, Biotechnology, and Electronic Firms in Malaysia.” Seoul Journal of Economics 22 (No. 4 2009): 529-50.
22. Roffe, P., Tansey, G., and Eugui, D. V. Negotiating Health: Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines. London: Earthscan, 2006.
23. Rosenberg, Nathan. “How Exogenous Is Science?” Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 141-159, 1982.
24. Scannell, Jack W., Blanckley, A., Boldon, H., and Warrington, B. “Diagnosing the Decline in Pharmaceutical R&D Efficiency.” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 11 (No. 3 2012): 191-200.
25. Sherwood, R. M., Scartezini, V., and Siemsen, P. D. “Promotion of Inventiveness in Developing Countries through a More Advanced Patent Administration.” IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 39 (No. 4 1999): 473-506.
26. Stiglitz, J. “Public Policy towards Intellectual Property.” International Computer Law Adviser 6 (1991): 4-7.
27. Vogelson, C. T. “We Are the World?” Modern Drug Discovery 4 (No. 6 2001): 36-38, 40, 42.