Dallas, TX: Media, politicians and even some of the public are criticizing brand name drug companies for “gaming the patent system”. The critics seemingly have adopted the assumption that the brand name companies can do no right, while drug companies that manufacture generic drugs can do no wrong.

“In a market the size of prescription drugs, it is simply naïve to assume that brand name companies are selfishly side-stepping the rules while generics and other players always have the best interest of patients at heart,” says Dr. Merrill Matthews in a newly released publication “Answering the Critics of Pharmaceutical Patents” by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI).

The report brings some balance to the lopsided patent debate by answering the following criticisms:

· Are prescription drug patents creating a monopoly and keeping cheaper generic drugs off the market?
· Do patents keep drug prices high and limit low-income people’s access to brand name drugs?
· Are brand name drug companies going to extremes to extend their patents?
· Are Innovator companies filing frivolous lawsuits to keep generics off the market?
· Do strong intellectual property laws hurt the poor?

For example, one of the primary criticisms is that brand name companies get a 30-month patent extension when they file a lawsuit to stop a generic company from manufacturing a copy of the brand name company’s drug. What the brand name company actually gets is a 30-month stay that prohibits the generic from taking its drug to market while the parties litigate the issue. If the patent expires during the stay, the lawsuit becomes moot.

“Pharmaceutical critics have been effective because patent law and intellectual property are inherently murky subjects. Their continual attacks have created a false perception that innovators are gaming the patent system, when in fact a for-profit generic manufacturer may be infringing a patent,” continues Dr. Matthews. “It’s time to bring a little balance to the debate.”