Russia justifies overriding COVID-19 drug patent

Headline RUSSIA: Moscow justifies unlicensed COVID drug permit

Proposed Title of the Project: Should China Implement Compulsory Drug Patent Licenses? - From the Perspective of COVID-19

<p>Although China has already issued laws and regulations on compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents, it has not yet implemented specific practices. After the outbreak of “COVID-19”, realistic needs have made it urgent for China to implement compulsory drug patent licensing. Therefore, this study will be based on China’s national conditions, combined with China’s laws and regulations on the compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents, and compare specific practices in other countries. Through qualitative analysis, it’s clear that China implements compulsory pharmaceutical patent licensing in three aspects: domestic system, international level, and government responsibility. To analyze the feasibility of China’s drug patent compulsory licensing system and provide suggestions.</p>

A Brief analysis of compulsory license of drug patent under public Health Crisis

In the face of the new crown epidemic, the implementation of the drug patent compulsory licensing system is one of the problems that needs to be solved urgently. At present, my country has established a relatively complete patent compulsory licensing system, but the system still presents a "zero implementation" status in my country. my country should learn from foreign experience, improve the system design of my country's pharmaceutical patent compulsory licensing by conditionally liberalizing the scope of application subjects, raising patent license fees and other measures; at the policy level, preferentially adopt negotiation methods to weaken the trade frictions caused by the implementation of patent compulsory licensing , To balance the incentive mechanism for pharmaceutical patent innovation, and actively promote the implementation of the pharmaceutical patent compulsory licensing system in my country.

Generic Entry Before the Agreed-Upon Date in Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements

ABSTRACT Drug patent litigation settlements specify a date for generic entry and typically include a so-called acceleration clause allowing the generic to enter earlier in certain circumstances. An agreed-upon date between a brand and a generic with “first-filer” status is particularly salient because this date also affects when other generics may enter. It has been unclear the degree to which acceleration clauses increase competition—by accelerating entry—or decrease competition, by deterring pursuit of entry by potential generic competitors. This paper documents the entry outcome after first-filer-brand settlements by tracking how often acceleration clauses in these settlements in fact accelerate entry. In no case was a first filer’s 180-day exclusivity period accelerated because of a later filing generic winning patent litigation or settling for an earlier entry date. In the cases where early entry occurred, the first filer had lost its right to the exclusivity period, typically by failing to receive tentative FDA approval within 30 months of its filing; or other generics shared first-filer status. An acceleration clause paired with the 180-day exclusivity period appears to effectively deter other generics and, at least in the instances we observed, never to have resulted in an actual “accelerated” entry.