In the recent post on the approval of generic Combivir — and the lack of availability of generic Epivir (lamivudine, 3TC), which was both anticipated and likely to be more useful — I speculated there were several possible causes of this surprising turn of events.
But ultimately I concluded, “In sum, the real reason there’s no generic 3TC remains a mystery.”
Last week, however, I received a fascinating email from an industry representative, who has asked that I summarize the turn of events from their perspective:
- The Epivir patent in the US expired in May 2010.
- A generic company was granted exclusive rights to market a generic in the US for 6 months. (This is part of patent law.)
- The particular company that was granted exclusivity was not been able to manufacture a product that has met approvability standards by the FDA.
- During the period of exclusivity, furthermore, no other company can market a generic either — again, patent law in action.
Mystery solved — and thank you for the clarification.
But I hasten to add that this information was not widely known by HIV/ID specialists, and furthermore not easy to find. One of my colleagues has likened reading rulings on patent law for generics akin to learning English as a second language, a very apt analogy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Infectious Disease Articles
A great way to be introduced to patent law for generics and the sordid strategies used by pharmaceutical industry is through the reading of “The Truth About the Drug Companies” by Marcia Angell.