Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:02:22.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oligopolist Speech and the Public Interest in Pharmaceutical Patent Law Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2018

Chris Dent  and
Yvonne Haigh
Chris Dent
Affiliation:
Associate Professor School of Law, Murdoch Universityc.dent@murdoch.edu.au
Yvonne Haigh
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer Sir Walter Murdoch School of Public Policy & International Affairs, Murdoch Universityy.haigh@murdoch.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understandings of the public interest underpin many law reform processes. The public interest is not a fully definable term and so reform bodies have to engage with a range of articulations of that interest. The negotiation of the different articulations, however, has not been explored empirically before. This article reports on a study of the claims to the public interest in a public Australian inquiry into potential abuses of the patent system by pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, submissions to the Pharmaceutical Patents Review are analysed and the results show “oligopolistic” tensions between competing views of the public interest—and with these views claiming primacy over more technical understandings of the issues. This lack of a single “public interest” allows dominant players to frame the debate to reflect their interests; and the tension between these players means that the debate, and the underlying problem, has not been subject to a resolution.

Résumé

Une certaine compréhension des questions d’intérêt public sous-tend de nombreux processus de réforme du droit. Toutefois, définir avec précision ce que constitue l’intérêt public est intrinsèquement ardu et les agents d’une réforme du droit doivent composer avec les diverses interprétations de ce concept. Par ailleurs, la négociation de différentes articulations n’a jamais été explorée de façon empirique. Le présent article porte sur une étude des demandes faites au nom de l’intérêt public dans le cadre d’une enquête publique menée en Australie sur les compagnies pharmaceutiques et les abus potentiels du système de brevets. Plus précisément, des demandes présentées au Conseil d’examen des brevets pharmaceutiques sont analysées et les résultats illustrent les tensions d’ordre oligopolistique émanant des vues divergentes des questions d’intérêt public, de même que des demandes de protection des renseignements quant aux articulations plus techniques de ces questions. Étant donné l’absence de définition de l’intérêt public, les parties intéressées peuvent faire valoir une définition correspondant à leurs intérêts. La tension qui existe entre les parties intéressées signifie que le débat ainsi que le problème sous-jacent n’ont toujours pas trouvé de solution.

Keywords

PatentsLaw reformPublic interestPublic PolicyEvergreeningbrevetsréforme du droitquestions d’intérêt publicpolitiques publiquescapacité de mise à niveau
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2018 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

AFTINET et al. 2013a. Submission to the Pharmaceutical Patents Review, copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
AFTINET et al. 2013b. Response to the Draft Report of the Pharmaceutical Patents Review, copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Alphapharm. 2013. Relevant Matters for Public Hearing Tuesday 12 February 2013, copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Amin, T., and Kesselheim, A.. 2012. Secondary Patents of Branded Pharmaceuticals. Health Affairs 31 (10): 2286–94.Google Scholar
Angell, M. 2004. Over and above: Excess in the pharmaceutical industry. Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 (12): 1451–53.Google Scholar
Capano, G., and Howlett, M.. 2009. Introduction: The determinants of policy change: Advancing the debate. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: research and practice 11 (1): 1–5.Google Scholar
Chalmers, R. 2006. Evergreen or deciduous? Australian trends in relation to the ‘evergreening’ of patents. Melbourne University Law Review 30 (1): 29–61.Google Scholar
Christie, A., Dent, C., McIntyre, P., Wilson, L., and Studdert, D.. 2013. Patents associated with high-cost drugs in Australia. PLoS One 8 (4): e60812.Google Scholar
Colebatch, H. K. 2009. Governance as a conceptual development in the analysis of policy. Critical Policy Studies 3 (1): 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, C. 2012. The Possibilities of a Regulatory Approach to Answer the Question: Should genetic inventions be patentable? Journal of Law, Information and Science 22 (1): 16–31.Google Scholar
Derzko, N. 2005. The impact of recent reforms of the Hatch-Waxman Scheme on Orange Book Strategic Behaviour and Pharmaceutical Innovation. IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 452:165–265.Google Scholar
Duckett, S., and Breadon, P., 2015. Premium Policy? Getting Better Value from the PBS. Grattan Institute, Melbourne. Accessed at: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/823-Premium-Policy.pdf.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1989. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Generic Medicines Industry Association. 2013. Public Response to the Pharmaceutical Patents (Review), copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Glasgow, L. 2001. Stretching the limits of intellectual property rights: Has the pharmaceutical industry gone too far? IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 41 (2): 227–58.Google Scholar
Gleeson, D. H., Moir, H., and Lopert, R.. 2015. Costs to Australian taxpayers of pharmaceutical monopolies and proposals to extend them in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Medical Journal of Australia 202 (6): 306–08.Google Scholar
Haigh, Y. T. 2012. Public Policy in Australia: theory and practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. 1974. Modern Social politics in Britain and Sweden: from relief to income maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, J., Kirchner, A., and Holmes, A.. 2001. Pharmaceutical Industry Action Agenda, Discussion Paper. Australian Government, Department of Industry, Science and Resources.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. 2010. The Governance of Problems. Bristol UK: The Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, M. 2003. Extending the monopoly – How “secondary patents” can be used to delay or prevent generic competition upon expiry of the basic product patent. Journal of Generic Medicines 1 (1): 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K., Ritter, A., and Colebatch, H.. 2014. Problems, policy and politics: making sense of Australia’s ice epidemic. Policy Studies 35 (2): 147–71.Google Scholar
Lascoumes, P., and Le Gales, P.. 2007. Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments—from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance 20: 1–20.Google Scholar
Malpas, J., and Wickham, G.. 1995. Governance and failure: On the limits of sociology. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 31 (3): 37–50.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., and Gurgula, O.. 2016. Patent strategies and competition law in the pharmaceutical sector: Implications for access to medicines. European Intellectual Property Review 38 (11): 661–67.Google Scholar
Moir, H. 2013. Response to Pharmaceutical Patent Review Draft Report, copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Moses, L., Gollan, N., and Tranter, K.. 2015. The productivity commission: A different engine for law reform? Griffith Law Review 24 (4): 657–86.Google Scholar
Parker, S., and Mooney, K.. 2007. Is “evergreening” a cause for concern? A legal perspective Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 13 (4): 235–43.Google Scholar
Peters, G. 2013. Institutions in context, and as context. In Context in Public Policy and Management: the missing link, ed. Pollitt, C., London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 101–14.Google Scholar
Peters, G., Erkkliä, T., and von Maravić, P.. 2016. Public Administration: Research Strategies, Concepts, and Methods. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Patents Review. 2012. Background and Suggested Issues Paper. Australian Government, Canberra.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Patents Review. 2013a. Draft Report. Australian Government, Canberra.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Patents Review. 2013b. Final Report. Australian Government, Canberra.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. 2013. Submission to the Pharmaceutical Patents Review, copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Pope, R., and Selten, R.. 2013. Submission sent 3rd April 2013 providing feedback on April 2013 Draft Report by the Pharmaceutical Patents Review Panel, copy on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission. 2016. Intellectual Property Arrangements. Productivity Commission Research Report. Australian Government.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission. 2010. Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Productivity Commission Research Report. Australian Government.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. 2000. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licences, patent pools and standard setting. In Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1, ed. Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., and Stern, S.. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sweeney, K. 2002. Demand and Price Dynamics within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Working Paper.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. 2007. Medicinal Chemistry – An Introduction, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. 2015. Mega-Regional Trade Deals in the Asia-Pacific: Choosing between the TPP and RCEP? Journal of Contemporary Asia 45 (2): 345–53.Google Scholar
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)Google Scholar
Aktiebologet Hassle v Alphapharm. 2002. HCA 59.Google Scholar
Merck v Arrow [2006] FCAFC 91.Google Scholar
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)Google Scholar
Aktiebologet Hassle v Alphapharm. 2002. HCA 59.Google Scholar
Merck v Arrow [2006] FCAFC 91.Google Scholar