Over half of the brand name drug manufacturers
responding to a recent industry
survey admitted to using patent litigation
and other antigeneric "defense
strategies" to protect their pharmaceuticals
from generic competition. Almost the
same number39%told researchers at
Cutting Edge Information (CEI) that they
had resorted to the use of authorized
generics during the past 3 years to maintain
market share as their drugs lost
patent protection.
Launching new product formulations
was "the most popular generics defense
strategy" adopted by the 33 branded pharmaceutical
companies surveyed. About
82% of these manufacturers "marketed
new formulations to extend patent life in
the face of pending patent expirations."
Another 55% were able to stave off
generic competition by securing FDA
approvals for new indications for their
drugs, while 27% secured pediatric
extensions to prolong patent life for
their products.
Seven out of 10 manufacturers surveyed
said they resorted to "defensive
pricing" to protect their branded products,
while 18% told the researchers
they had engaged in "serious pursuit of
OTC status" for their drugs in response
to imminent price competition from
generic versions.
Those findings, part of a report entitled
Combating Generics: Pharmaceutical
Brand Defense for 2007, suggest that the
nation's branded drug companies are
engaging in a broad range of activities to
reduce or eliminate competition from
generics pharmaceutical producers.
Significantly, researchers at CEI said the
use of strategies such as establishing
generics subsidiaries or marketing
authorized generics is frowned upon by
many in the brand name drug industry.
"Survey respondents pointed out
these options are extremely unpopular
within brand and life-cycle management
groups, as they do little to retain
market share and product revenues,"
the researchers said. "The decisions to
pursue these options are often handled
outside of day-to-day brand management,
and they are seen as a method
for giving generics competitors unnecessary
inroads into valued markets at
the cost of branded companies."