AstraZeneca Tries To Use 'Orphan Drug' Designation To Extend Patent Life Of Top-Selling Pill

from the evergreen-desire-to-hang-to-intellectual-monopolies dept

At the heart of copyright and patents there is -- theoretically -- an implicit social contract. People are granted a time-limited, government-backed monopoly in return for allowing copyright material or patented techniques to enter the public domain once that period has expired. And yet copyright and patent holders often seem unwilling to respect the terms of that contract, as they seek to hang on to their monopolies beyond the agreed time in various ways.

In the case of copyright, this has been through repeated extensions of copyright's term, even though there is no economic justification for doing so. In the realm of pharma patents, a number of techniques have been employed. One is "pay for delay." Another is the granting of "data exclusivity." And a third is the use of "evergreening." Techdirt wrote about the last of these a while back, so it's no surprise that companies have continued to "innovate" in this field since then. For example, AstraZeneca is trying to use a variant of evergreening for its anti-cholesterol pill Crestor. As a New York Times article explains:

Crestor is the company’s best-selling drug, accounting for $5 billion of its $23.6 billion in product sales last year. About $2.8 billion in sales were in the United States, where the retail price is about $260 a month, according to
Here's how AstraZeneca hopes to hold on to that lucrative market, even though its patent on the drug is now coming to an end, and it should be entering the public domain:
The company is making a bold attempt to fend off impending generic competition to its best-selling drug, the anti-cholesterol pill Crestor, by getting it approved to treat [a] rare disease. In an unusual legal argument, the company says Crestor is entitled to seven years of additional market exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act, a three-decade-old law that encourages pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments for rare diseases.
In May, AstraZeneca won approval of Crestor to treat children with the rare genetic disease of homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH ). That gives it an additional seven-year patent on the drug, but only for that particular -- very small -- market. However, the designation means that detailed prescription information about using Crestor to treat children in this way must not be included on the label. AstraZeneca's clever lawyers are trying to turn that into an extended patent for all uses of the drug:
AstraZeneca immediately petitioned the F.D.A., arguing that if the correct dose for children with HoFH could not be on the generic label, then it would be illegal and dangerous to approve any generic versions for any use at all. That is because doctors might still prescribe the generic for children with HoFH and choose the wrong dose, posing "substantial safety and efficacy risks."
Needless to say, AstraZeneca was only asking for generic versions to be kept off the market for another seven years for safety reasons, not because doing so would bring it billions more in exclusive sales to the general population. Of course.

The New York Times article goes into more detail about the fascinating legal background to AstraZeneca's argument here, and notes that other drug companies have tried the same approach in the past, without success. Even if this particular ploy does fail again, we can be sure that pharma companies will be back with other sneaky ways of extending their patent monopolies -- implicit social contract be damned.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and +glynmoody on Google+

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blocking, competition, crestor, evergreening, fda, generics, new uses, patents
Companies: astrazeneca

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2016 @ 9:44pm

    How can it be orphaned if others want to make it?

    It would only help the kids with those needs if more companies produced it and at a cheaper price. Hopefully those in charge see thru the greed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Jul 2016 @ 10:12pm

    Re: How can it be orphaned if others want to make it?

    The disease was orphaned by the drug industry.
    The total income would never recoup the advertising budget & development, so they don't bother looking.

    So now a company went searching for one of those diseases to get their best seller approved to treat (something they never looked at until their billions might stop flowing) and then make moves to lock up 7 more years of being the only game in town. The R&D and the advertising budget was recouped long ago, and they have made huge profits... that they couldn't be bothered to use to find a treatment for a disease, they just want to cling to this one for as long as possible.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 12:48am

    They already have the market cornered with manufacturing and distribution, american corporate douche.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 1:59am

    This is your Copyright and Patent on drugs

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Narcissus (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 2:56am

    The problem is now glaringly obvious

    "Crestor is the company’s best-selling drug, accounting for $5 billion of its $23.6 billion in product sales last year"

    It's clear the patents make the companies lazy and averse to innovation. No sane company would make their business so dependent on one product that it accounts for more than 20% of their sales if they didn't think they could keep that position.

    It's not like high cholesterol is the last disease in the world and there is nothing else to research. There exist plenty opportunities to diversify the portfolio a bit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Ninja (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:19am

    to treat children with the rare genetic disease

    Am I the only one that noticed they are doing it for the children? /sarcasm

    No, really, let's screw some kids to get a few beeellions, shall we?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:36am


    Having looked up Familial hypercholesterolemia, this is a mean trick, as crestor is one of the drugs that would be looked at for this diease, which is one that causes high cholesterol.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:48am

    If this fails they will try again with the disease 'wantmoremoneyitoussoimgonnabuycongress'. It only affects large corporations (corporations are people right?)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:50am

    The whole industry is corrupt and needs reformed

    There is an asthma medicine, Breo, that has a pretty bad side effect. It may increase your risk of death by asthma. Why the #$%& is this even on the market? Oh you have asthma? Well take this it will cure you by making you dead!

    Then there is Xyrem, a drug first synthesized over a hundred years ago yet is patented, made by a single company and can only be dispensed by a single pharmacy thanks to the war on drugs. About ten years ago Xyrem was about $3,000 a month, its now over $10,000 a month. Must be nice to have a 99.99% profit margin.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    Will "scifantasy" Frank (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:54am

    I have to say, the gloss over the "fascinating legal argument" is interesting--the argument amounts to AstraZeneca saying, "sure, the last time someone in our position tried to do exactly this, the court threw them out so hard they cracked the pavement...but the court was wrong!" which I'm sure is going to get a lot of traction in the courts.

    It's not good that companies are trying to do this, but it's important to note that they keep failing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 6:44am

    We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.
    -- George W. Merck, founder of the Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    Padpaw (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 6:54am

    why innovate when you can steal, lie and leech off other people's works instead.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    Vidiot (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 9:50am

    One statin among many... are the ALL orphans?

    Pretty thin claim to make... Crestor (rosuvastatin calcium) is a fairly mainstream, run-of-the-mill statin... no unique mechanism of action; in other words, you could take any of about a half-dozen other common drugs to achieve the same effect. However, there are two actual orphan drugs approved -- mipomersen and lomitapide -- with novel mechanisms of action, totally unlike statins, and possibly more effective. If this one me-too drug qualifies as an orphan, so does Lipitor, Mevacor, Pravachol... patent extensions for everybody!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    John85851 (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 10:36am


    You may be joking, but I can easily see the company doing something like this.
    Keep an eye out for commercials that say "Do you fall asleep at 11:00pm? You might have night-time-sleepiness syndrome, a brand-new disease. Take Crestor and you won't fall asleep again."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Rekrul, 15 Jul 2016 @ 2:10pm

    Drug prices are out of control. I was part of a clinical trial for a new psoriasis drug. It worked great and what I didn't realize was that it was also keeping my psoriatic arthritis under control (I though the previous trial I was on had knocked it out). The trial ended around the start of May. A couple weeks later my arthritis started to come back. I saw my doctor about two weeks later (first appointment he had open), which makes it a month after the study ended.

    The drug that I took during the trial, Xeljanz, was already approved for treating arthritis, so my doctor wrote me a prescription for it. Medicaid took an additional two weeks to approve it. Why? Maybe the fact that it's $4,040.68 a month might have something to do with it!

    Since I was off it for a month and a half, my arthritis got to the point where it may now take months to get back to where I was. If I get back there at all. During the study I was taking 20mg a day, but apparently it's only approved for 10mg a day, which is what I'm taking now.

    On the plus side, it has almost completely cleared up my psoriasis, so there's that...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 3:12pm

    Rosuvastatin is generic in Australia

    I quote from the following website article at Win for generic pharmaceutical companies in Australia 18 August 2014
    In a unanimous five-judge Full Federal Court decision handed down on 12 August, AstraZeneca once again failed to prevent generic companies from selling competing generic versions of its Crestor (rosuvastatin) cholesterol drug.

    In 2011/2012, AstraZeneca, the holder of three Crestor-related patents, commenced infringement proceedings against generic pharmaceutical companies Watson and Ascent, both now part of the Actavis Group, and Apotex. AstraZeneca was relying on patents concerning dosage ranges, methods of treatment and pharmaceutical compositions respectively.

    Last year, the Federal Court held that the generic companies' products would not infringe AstraZeneca's patents and, in any event, all three patents were partially or wholly invalid on numerous grounds.

    The Full Federal Court has now upheld that earlier decision, finding that two of the patents were invalid (the trial Judge's findings on the third patent were not appealed), dismissing AstraZeneca's appeal and ordering it to pay 80% of the generic companies' costs of the appeal.


    Rosuvastatin is reportedly now Australia's leading "genericised" drug. According to figures released by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), the Australian Government spent A$298.6 million on rosuvastatin in the 2013-14 financial year.

    Commenting on the decision, Mr McMaster said: "The Full Court's decision (12 August 2014) ensures that the generic market for rosuvastatin (and therefore the current cost to the Australian Government through the PBS) is maintained. It demonstrates that Australian courts will not permit an unwarranted extension of an innovator's monopoly beyond the compound itself unless the patent appropriately covers patentable subject matter."
    And notice that they had to pay 80% of the costs of their opponents. They tried to be nasty and they suffered the consequences. America may be able to learn something from this, though you are so far away from actual fairness any more that that is probably now not possible.

    Mayhaps your courts can follow in the same vein.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2016 @ 2:15am

    Re: The whole industry is corrupt and needs reformed

    Drugs having the potential to backfire is nothing new and is a sad hazard - not a reason to ban a drug in itself. Biology is very complicated and what is normally the right thing can turn wrong in niche circumstances.

    For instance it is possible to die of a terribly ironic allergic reaction to an antihistamine used to treat another allergic reaction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2016 @ 6:16am

    There are no money in healthy people. We need people to be treated, no cured.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. icon
    MrTroy (profile), 17 Jul 2016 @ 11:30pm

    Re: Re: The whole industry is corrupt and needs reformed

    I think I heard about that. The allergic reaction isn't actually fatal, but the dose of irony is too much for most people to handle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)


Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat

Warning: include(/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/ failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/ on line 8

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/..') in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/ on line 8
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.