IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v24y2022i2p810-826.html

The Effects of Patent Extension and Take-Back Regulation on Green Pharmacy

Author

Listed:
  • Tianqin Shi

    (School of Global Innovation and Leadership, San Jose State University, San Jose, California 95192)

  • Nicholas C. Petruzzi

    (Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems, Penn State University, State College, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Dilip Chhajed

    (Department of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907)

Abstract

Problem definition: The eco-toxicity arising from unused pharmaceuticals has regulators advocating the benign design concept of “green pharmacy,” but high research and development expenses can be prohibitive. We therefore examine the impacts of two regulatory mechanisms, patent extension and take-back regulation, on inducing drug manufacturers to go green. Academic/practical relevance: One incentive suggested by the European Environmental Agency is a patent extension for a company that redesigns its already patented pharmaceutical to be more environmentally friendly. This incentive can encourage both the development of degradable drugs and the disclosure of technical information. Yet, it is unclear how effective the extension would be in inducing green pharmacy and in maximizing social welfare. Methodology: We develop a game-theoretic model in which an innovative company collects monopoly profits for a patented pharmaceutical but faces competition from a generic rival after the patent expires. A social-welfare-maximizing regulator is the Stackelberg leader. The regulator leads by offering a patent extension to the innovative company while also imposing take-back regulation on the pharmaceutical industry. Then the two-profit maximizing companies respond by setting drug prices and choosing whether to invest in green pharmacy. Results: The regulator’s optimal patent extension offer can induce green pharmacy but only if the offer exceeds a threshold length that depends on the degree of product differentiation present in the pharmaceutical industry. The regulator’s correspondingly optimal take-back regulation generally prescribes a required collection rate that decreases as its optimal patent extension offer increases, and vice versa. Managerial implications: By isolating green pharmacy as a potential target to address pharmaceutical eco-toxicity at its source, the regulatory policy that we consider, which combines the incentive inherent in earning a patent extension on the one hand with the penalty inherent in complying with take-back regulation on the other hand, serves as a useful starting point for policymakers to optimally balance economic welfare considerations with environmental stewardship considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianqin Shi & Nicholas C. Petruzzi & Dilip Chhajed, 2022. "The Effects of Patent Extension and Take-Back Regulation on Green Pharmacy," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 810-826, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:2:p:810-826
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2021.1009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.1009
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2021.1009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hurwitz, Mark A & Caves, Richard E, 1988. "Persuasion or Information? Promotion and the Shares of Brand Name and Generic Pharmaceuticals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 299-320, October.
    2. Bottazzi, Giulio & Dosi, Giovanni & Lippi, Marco & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2001. "Innovation and corporate growth in the evolution of the drug industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1161-1187, July.
    3. Arina Denoth & Christophe Pinget & Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen, 2011. "Citizens’ preferences for brand name drugs for treating acute and chronic conditions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 81-87, March.
    4. Kitch, Edmund W, 1977. "The Nature and Function of the Patent System," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 265-290, October.
    5. Paul Burrows, 1979. "Pigovian Taxes, Polluter Subsidies, Regulation, and the Size of a Polluting Industry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 12(3), pages 494-501, August.
    6. Barrie R. Nault, 1996. "Equivalence of Taxes and Subsidies in the Control of Production Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 307-320, March.
    7. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    8. Grabowski, Henry G & Vernon, John M, 1992. "Brand Loyalty, Entry, and Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(2), pages 331-350, October.
    9. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    10. Margaret Walls & Paul Calcott, 2000. "Can Downstream Waste Disposal Policies Encourage Upstream "Design for Environment"?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 233-237, May.
    11. James Kroes & Ravi Subramanian & Ramanath Subramanyam, 2012. "Operational Compliance Levers, Environmental Performance, and Firm Performance Under Cap and Trade Regulation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 186-201, April.
    12. J. Lindsay Oaks & Martin Gilbert & Munir Z. Virani & Richard T. Watson & Carol U. Meteyer & Bruce A. Rideout & H. L. Shivaprasad & Shakeel Ahmed & Muhammad Jamshed Iqbal Chaudhry & Muhammad Arshad & S, 2004. "Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6975), pages 630-633, February.
    13. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1984. "Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 288-307.
    14. Palmer, Karen & Walls, Margaret, 1997. "Optimal policies for solid waste disposal Taxes, subsidies, and standards," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 193-205, August.
    15. Saibal Ray & Tamer Boyaci & Necati Aras, 2005. "Optimal Prices and Trade-in Rebates for Durable, Remanufacturable Products," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 208-228, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tao, Ran & Lan, Yanfei & Zhao, Ruiqing & Gao, Rong, 2025. "Product line extensions and distribution channels in pharmaceutical supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 323(2), pages 490-503.
    2. Shaofu Du & Chenyang Gou & Wenzhi Tang, 2025. "Green technology opening, imitation, and investment: firms’ strategic technology choices in competitive markets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 355(1), pages 1223-1269, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Beatrice Dumont & Peter Holmes, 2002. "The Scope Of Intellectual Property Rights and their Interface with Competition Law and Policy: Divergent Paths to the Same Goal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 149-162.
    3. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    4. Maurice D. Levi & Barrie R. Nault, 2004. "Converting Technology to Mitigate Environmental Damage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(8), pages 1015-1030, August.
    5. Jayashree Mahajan & Asoo J Vakharia, 2016. "Waste Management: A Reverse Supply Chain Perspective," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 41(3), pages 197-208, September.
    6. Anja Breitwieser & Neil Foster-McGregor, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Technology Transfer: A Survey," wiiw Working Papers 88, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    7. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    8. Acuff, Kaylee & Kaffine, Daniel T., 2013. "Greenhouse gas emissions, waste and recycling policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 74-86.
    9. Numata, Daisuke, 2009. "Economic analysis of deposit–refund systems with measures for mitigating negative impacts on suppliers," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 199-207.
    10. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Yunyun Wan, 2018. "Brand Loyalty and Generic Entry: Why Do Brand-Name Drug Companies Launch Their Own Generics?," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 340-346, September.
    12. Allen N. Berger & Astrid A. Dick, 2007. "Entry into Banking Markets and the Early‐Mover Advantage," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(4), pages 775-807, June.
    13. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    14. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    15. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Gianluca Papa & Nicola Carmine Salerno, 2005. "Generici vs. Branded: confronto internazionale su prodotti off-patent rimborsati dal SSN," Working Papers CERM 01-2005, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    17. Carl Shapiro, 2008. "Patent Reform: Aligning Reward and Contribution," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 111-156, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Özdemir, Öznur & Denizel, Meltem & Guide, V. Daniel R., 2012. "Recovery decisions of a producer in a legislative disposal fee environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 293-300.
    19. Novelli, Elena, 2015. "An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 493-507.
    20. Appelt, Silvia, 2010. "Authorized Generic Entry prior to Patent Expiry: Reassessing Incentives for Independent Generic Entry," Discussion Papers in Economics 11476, University of Munich, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:2:p:810-826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.