ArticleAmerican economic journal. Economic policy2023
Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination.
Article in American economic journal. Economic policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contradicting rulings of the US patent office on double patenting jeopardize the generic and biosimilar drugs.Pharmaceutical patent analyst · 2024Article
- Patents and regulatory exclusivities on FDA-approved insulin products: A longitudinal database study, 1986-2019.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- The NBER Orange Book Dataset: A user's guide.Research policy · 2023Article
- The Costs of Delayed Generic Drug Entry: Evidence from a Controversial Prostate Cancer Drug Patent.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- The characteristics of patents impacting availability of biosimilars.Nature biotechnology · 2022Article
- Negative innovation: when patents are bad for patients.Nature biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We explore how the Patent Office may improve the quality of issued patents on "secondary" drug features by giving examiners more time to review drug-patent applications. Our findings suggest that current time allocations are causing examiners to issue low quality secondary patents on the margin. To assess the merits of expanding ex ante scrutiny of drug-patent applications at the agency, we set forth estimates of the various gains and losses associated with giving examiners more time, including reduced downstream litigation costs and added personnel expenses, along with both the static gains and dynamic innovation losses associated with earlier generic entry.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.