IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/34024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Patenting: Evidence from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Michael D. Frakes
  • Melissa F. Wasserman

Abstract

Biological drugs account for just two percent of prescriptions filled in the U.S. but fifty percent of prescription-drug spending. To explore the role patents play in explaining high biologics prices, we build the first comprehensive database of patents associated with all FDA-approved biologics. We first establish that much of what drives biologic patenting is the desire to block entry by competing biosimilars. For these purposes, we estimate the response to a 2010 Act that created an abbreviated pathway for biosimilars to receive FDA approval. We then document robust evidence consistent with two patenting strategies that may block biosimilar competition: thicketing and evergreening, whereby firms supplement primary patents with a dense web of later-expiring patents on secondary drug features. We conduct various exercises to suggest that these behaviors are undertaken with exclusionary purposes that go beyond the traditional justifications of the patent system. We then set forth various descriptive statistics surrounding biosimilar entry to suggest that these patenting strategies are, in fact, effective at delaying biosimilar entry. Finally, we simulate the degree to which biologics patent portfolios are impacted by policy proposals currently under consideration to address thicketing and evergreening.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2025. "Strategic Patenting: Evidence from the Biopharmaceutical Industry," NBER Working Papers 34024, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:34024
    Note: EH IO LE PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w34024.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dietmar Harhoff, 2009. "The role of patents and licenses in securing external finance for innovation," EIB Papers 11/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    2. Manasi Deshpande & Yue Li, 2019. "Who Is Screened Out? Application Costs and the Targeting of Disability Programs," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 213-248, November.
    3. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2015. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61614, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Durvasula, Maya & Hemphill, C. Scott & Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore & Sampat, Bhaven & Williams, Heidi L., 2023. "The NBER Orange Book Dataset: A user’s guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    5. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    7. Margaret Kyle, 2016. "Competition law, intellectual property, and the pharmaceutical sector," Post-Print hal-01514478, HAL.
    8. Pierre Dubois & Olivier de Mouzon & Fiona Scott-Morton & Paul Seabright, 2015. "Market size and pharmaceutical innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 844-871, October.
    9. C. Scott Hemphill & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2025. "Patents, Innovation, and Competition in Pharmaceuticals: The Hatch-Waxman Act after 40 Years," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 27-52, Spring.
    10. David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite & Manuel I. Hermosilla, 2020. "Expected Profits and The Scientific Novelty of Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27093, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Preventives Versus Treatments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1167-1239.
    12. Duncan S. Gilchrist, 2016. "Patents as a Spur to Subsequent Innovation? Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 189-221, October.
    13. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    14. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    15. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    16. Hemphill, C. Scott & Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Evergreening, patent challenges, and effective market life in pharmaceuticals," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 327-339.
    17. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    19. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    21. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2023. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 151-183, August.
    22. Coady Wing & Seth M. Freedman & Alex Hollingsworth, 2024. "Stacked Difference-in-Differences," NBER Working Papers 32054, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Petra Moser, 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    24. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 317-369.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    3. Fabian Gaessler & Stefan Wagner, 2022. "Patents, Data Exclusivity, and the Development of New Drugs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(3), pages 571-586, May.
    4. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    5. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2020. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," NBER Working Papers 27579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Nilsen, Øivind A. & Raknerud, Arvid, 2024. "Dynamics of first-time patenting firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    7. Ljungqvist, Alexander & Farre-Mensa, Joan & Hegde, Deepak, 2016. "The Bright Side of Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 11091, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    9. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2015. "Patent rights, product market reforms, and innovation," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 223-262, September.
    11. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    12. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "The Disciplinary Effect of Post-Grant Review," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 155, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Milan Miric & Lars Bo Jeppesen, 2020. "Does piracy lead to product abandonment or stimulate new product development?: Evidence from mobile platform‐based developer firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2155-2184, December.
    14. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2020. "The disciplinary effect of post-grant review – Causal evidence from European patent opposition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    15. 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.
    16. Iain M. Cockburn & Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2016. "Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 136-164, January.
    17. Dosi, Giovanni & Palagi, Elisa & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2023. "Do patents really foster innovation in the pharmaceutical sector? Results from an evolutionary, agent-based model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 564-589.
    18. Jérôme Danguy & Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2010. "The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective," EIB Papers 7/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    19. Wang, Lucy Xiaolu, 2022. "Global drug diffusion and innovation with the medicines patent pool," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    20. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K0 - Law and Economics - - General
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:34024. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.