Pharma Companies Extend Patent Life With Slight Modifications


The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most potential industry which has huge profit margins. Extensive growth and knowledge are required with frequent changes for better technology and results. Starting from early to the final stage there are gigantic chances of the product’s to face success or failure. Apart from these challenges, a large amount is invested to launch products in the market. In this entire process starting from drug designing to manufacturing, IPR plays a vital role. Intellectual Property Rights today are the most strategic and powerful asset of all large and Multinational Companies throughout the world, providing continued global market, economic dominance, and profitability. Multinational companies decide mergers and acquisitions on the basis of Intellectual Property Assets. All companies irrespective of their size get their technology Patented/Registered which makes their assets safe for a trading license, joint R&D/Production ventures, recognized globally.

Extension of Patent Life by Making Modification in Drugs

Pharmaceutical companies are playing smart by making slight modifications to their existing drugs in order to extend a patent life span which has resulted in calls for the government to not recognize process methods for patenting and allowing only molecular patents.

Pfizer’s Caduet is a perfect example, It is a pill used for the treatment of heart disease. Caduet is a simple combination of the blood pressure drug amlodipine besylate (marketed as Norvasc) and the cholesterol drug atorvastatin calcium (better known is Lipitor). Pfizer developed both Norvasc and Lipitor, with Lipitor holding the post of top-selling pharmaceutical in the world for several years. Pfizer’s patent on Norvasc and Lipitor expired in 2007and 2011, respectively, but due to Pfizer’s existing patent on the molecules, no other manufacturers could produce a combination medication containing the molecules. Caduet conveniently entered the market in 2004.

Another example is Prilosec, when the patent for Prilosec was near expiry, AstraZeneca in order to maintain the monopoly of the blockbuster drug Prilosec launched Nexium which was the same drug with minor changes in design and color.

Pharmaceutical R&D is an expensive and time-consuming process that may take 8-10 years to complete. Companies are well aware of the time consumed in the review and approval process by regulatory bodies before a new drug gets approval for marketing. So in order to recoup the considerable time and resources invested in the drug development and approval process, the pharmaceutical companies depend on exclusivity provisions granted by the regulatory bodies.

There are many official and unofficial methods to extend the term of a patent beyond 20 years wherein,

Official methods include provisions by some regulatory bodies such as Data exclusivity, Orphan drug exclusivity, Paediatric exclusivity and the 180-day exclusivity (Hatch Waxman Act, U.S. Food and Drug Administration), Supplementary protection certificate (European Medical Agency), whereas

Unofficial methods include altering or reformulate the existing compound to obtain a new patent by utilizing polymorphism, creating combinations, stereo-selective/chiral switches, conversion to NDDS, OTC switching, authorized generics, etc. This article aims at highlighting the strategies used by Pharma giants to extend the term of their patent portfolio in order to maintain their monopoly for extended periods and the regulatory provisions in different countries to check these practices.

However, the Pharmaceutical Association of Malaysia (PhAMA) is arguing with the government that modifications do make a difference because different salts carry different pharmacological properties which put forth different effects on patients. Moreover, different salts are patented alone as each carries different properties altogether.

As per PhAMA, nobody is able to predict which salt form is able to provide the desired therapeutic effects and both innovative and generic pharmaceutical companies do file their own patents which are further granted on the basis of novelty, inventive steps, and industrial applicability.

After discovering a compound and registering it as a patent, a drug company has 20 years of protection for the patent where it will then carry out pre-clinical trials, and Phases 1 to 3 clinical trials, all of which may take 10 to 12 years. After the trials, the company submits the results for product registration and the authority will evaluate the document.

Usage of Patented Technology in the Pharma Industry

Pharmaceutical companies are usually at high-risk as once a drug has been successfully created, it is susceptible to being copied by a third party through reverse engineering as pharmaceutical compounds can be easily imitated once they have been discovered hence, a patent protects the rights of the inventor and invention. If third-party voids their rights, they are bound to undergo Legal consequences.

Chin says that a strong IP regime is critical for Malaysia to boost its competitiveness, especially to attract foreign direct investment while at the same time encourage technological advancement and innovation.


Since drug development carries unknown risks and extensive research and development which consumes several years. For example, a pharmaceutical company spends some year’s time getting the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a drug. This means that when the drug comes up in the market, the patent could be good for only a few more years.

Some have considered whether it would be sensible to allow a solid 15 years of patent life after the drug has been cleared by the FDA. However, this is a complicated solution. Presently, drug companies already try to extend the patent life of their drugs as much as they can.

Most of the countries provide a 20-year exclusivity for a patented drug, so that innovator firm remits to undue practices such as evergreening in order to recover heavy costs incurred by them. These practices have become too aggressive with passing time.

Cooperative firms state to understand the pain of people and work for humanity, however, are not in any way humanitarian in their approach, even though they pose to be, their sole motive is to hold their monopoly in the market and increase the number of patents in their patent portfolios. To check this practice some countries have included certain provisions in their patent laws to extend the overall life of the patent so as to recover some of the time lost during regulatory processes, but in turn innovators firms have found loopholes in the laws and even started exploiting these official provisions.

Author: Ms. Deepika Sharma, Sr. Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

three × 3 =


  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010