Tag: healthcare

Categories
High Tech Industry Patents

Accenture Report Outlines How 5G Technology Accelerates Economic Growth

The following post comes from Wade Cribbs, a 2L at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

closeup of a circuit boardBy Wade Cribbs

Everyone in the technology industry knows that 5G is posed to revolutionize the world, but the finer points of 5G’s impact on the U.S. economy are detailed in a new report by Accenture entitled The Impact of 5G on the United States Economy. In the report, Accenture explains how 5G stands to add up to $1.5 trillion to the U.S. GDP and create or transform up to 16 million jobs from 2021 to 2025.

5G’s benefits include enabling the development of new industries, improving current industries, and accommodating the current, rapid growth of interconnected technologies. Autonomous vehicles are only achievable through 5G’s increased broadband, which can handle the large amount of data transferred to and from the sensors on vehicles on the road as they are operating. Furthermore, 5G is necessary to support the expected growth to 29.3 billion devices and 14.7 billion machine-to-machine connections by 2023. To get a better look at the specific impact 5G will have on the coming business and consumer landscape, Accenture focuses on five key business sectors: manufacturing, retail, healthcare, automotive and transportation, and utilities.

As 10,000 baby boomers retire a day, the manufacturing industry is in dire need of some way to meet its labor shortage. Due in part to a lack of interest from the younger generations, manufacturers are increasingly looking to automation. 5G will allow for an unprecedented level of control and synchronization across the warehouse floor. Examples of manufacturing improvements implementable with 5G include: AI assisted asset management utilizing video analytics and attached sensors; connected worker experiences implementing augmented reality to provide workers with a safer work experience and reduced training times; and enhanced quality monitoring through a combination of AI inspection and UHD video streaming monitoring. Accenture estimates that 5G will provide a $349.9 billion increase in sales for manufacturing of the equipment and products necessary to implement 5G in other business sectors.

In the retail sector, 5G can provide the data needed to support frictionless checkout experiences. AI used in combination with UHD video monitoring will allow for customers to be charged when putting items in their basket, eliminating the long lines that 86% of customers say have caused them to leave a store, which in turns leads to $37.7 billion in missed sales annually. Furthermore, this same AI monitoring system can be used to personalize a shopping experience through monitoring customers and alerting sales associates to a customer with a problem without the customer having to find and flag down an associate; the system can also monitor for theft, which costs the retail industry $25 million daily. Overall, Accenture estimates that the retail industry stands to see a $269.5 billion increase in sales due to 5G sales and cost savings.

Healthcare costs are expected to rise from $3.4 trillion to $6 trillion by 2027. As the need for healthcare professionals is expected to outstrip the labor supply, increases to technology and treatment efficiency are essential to address the problems presented by an aging population. The good news is that 5G is suited to address just these issues by eliminating waste, which is estimated to make up as much as 30% of spending. 5G will expand medical professionals’ ability to monitor patients, giving the option for at-home care to a wider range of patients as well as lowering the number of doctors required to monitor intensive care patients. Doctors will also be able to access previously unreachable patients for virtual consultations. No longer will rural Americans have to travel long distances to visit their doctor in the city. 5G will allow online consultants rapid access to vast amounts of data, such as MRI images, CAT scans, ultrasounds, ECGs, and stethoscope data. Accenture estimates that the healthcare industry stands to gain $192.3 billion in economic output and up to 1.7 million jobs.

As vehicles become smarter, safer, and more connected, 5G will enable automobiles to exchange data with other vehicles, the automotive infrastructure, and pedestrians. This will enhance vehicle safety, fleet management, and smart traffic management. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that the combined impact of vehicle-to-everything communication technology could reduce the severity of 80% of sober multi-vehicle crashes and 70% of crashes involving trucks. 5G video-based telematics will allow for automated vehicle fleets and fleet management capability, such as improved logistics security and goods-condition diagnostics to eliminate the up to 20% of empty cargo space in U.S. trucks. Through smart traffic managing by vehicle-to-vehicle communication and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and smog due to idling can all be reduced by an expected 15 to 30%. On the whole, Accenture estimates that $217.1 billion in revenue will be generated in the automotive and transportation industry by 5G.

5G will address multiple problems facing the utility industry, including vegetation and asset management, energy supply and resiliency, and next-generation workforces. 5G will allow smart grid technology to be implemented that can track and adapt to real-time disruptions to the power grid. In combination with smart grid technology, smart power plant technology will be able to map out peak power use and wear on equipment to determine optimal times for taking a machine offline for maintenance. Safer work environments can be created for the next generation workforce using augmented and virtual reality to train and eliminate manual methods with digital tools. Accenture estimates that the utility industry stands to grow by $36.9 billion in total sales from the implementation of 5G.

Accenture concludes that 5G is the necessary step towards achieving a new normal through AI, mass machine communications, and digital cloud technology. Every aspect of American life will be affected, and an unprecedented boost will be given to the economy.

To read the report, please click here.

Categories
FTC Healthcare

CPIP Scholars Join Comments to FTC on How Antitrust Overreach is Threatening Healthcare Innovation

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"On December 21, 2018, CPIP Senior Scholars Adam Mossoff and Kristen Osenga joined former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader and SIU Law’s Mark Schultz in comments submitted to the FTC as part of its ongoing Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings. Through the hearings, the FTC is examining whether recent economic or technological changes warrant adjustments to competition or consumer protection laws. The comments submitted to the FTC explain how the FTC itself is harming innovation in the health sciences by meddling in patent disputes between branded and generic drug companies.

The introduction is copied below, and the comments can be downloaded here.

***

How Antitrust Overreach is Threatening Healthcare Innovation

Imagine passing a rigorous test with flying colors, only to be told that you need to start over because you weren’t wearing the right clothing or you wrote your answers in the wrong color. Does that sound silly? Unfair? That scenario is happening to the American pharmaceutical industry thanks to regulators at the Federal Trade Commission who aren’t content to let the Food & Drug Administration (the experts in pharmaceutical safety and regulation) and federal courts (which referee disputes between branded and generic drug companies) decide when new drugs are ready to come to market. The consequences of these regulatory actions impact people’s lives.

The development and widespread availability of safe and effective pharmaceutical products has helped people live longer and better lives. The pharmaceutical industry invests billions each year in research and infrastructure and employs millions of Americans. The industry is closely regulated by many agencies, most notably the FDA, which requires extensive testing for safety and effectiveness before new drugs enter the market. Many thoughtful proposals have been advanced to improve and modernize the FDA’s review and approval of new drugs, but there is broad agreement that the FDA’s basic role in drug approval serves valid ends.

In recent years, however, other government agencies have played an increasingly intrusive role in deciding whether and when new drugs can enter the market. One such agency is the Federal Trade Commission, which has recently taken steps to block branded drug companies from settling patent litigation with generic drug makers. The FTC substitutes its own judgment for the business judgment of sophisticated parties, simultaneously weakening the patent rights of branded drug companies that spend billions in drug discovery and development and delaying generic drug companies from bringing consumers low cost alternatives to branded drugs. This example of government agencies picking winners and losers—indeed, deciding there should be no winners and losers—harms consumers in the short run by slowing access to drugs and in the long run by weakening innovation.

This paper describes the role of patents in protecting drugs and the special patent litigation regime Congress enacted in the 1980s to carefully balance the needs of branded drug companies, generic competitors, and consumers. Although these systems are not perfect, the FTC’s overreach in its regulatory powers in this area of the innovation economy results in a net loss for American consumers, as described below.

To read the comments, please click here.

Categories
Patent Law Pharma

Recognizing the Limits of Government Procurement in the Pharmaceutical Industries

pharmaceuticalsWhile recent headlines claim that rising drug prices can be easily addressed through government intervention, the procedures involved with government use of patented technologies are complex and often misunderstood. In addition to owning and practicing a vast portfolio of patents, the government has the power to procure and use patented technologies—including pharmaceutical medicines—in limited circumstances without specific authorization, license, or consent. But despite established mechanisms for government use of intellectual property, some advocates are now promoting an unprecedented and expansive interpretation of procurement that would deprive patent owners of their rights and threaten pharmaceutical innovation.

Today, escalating health care costs raise concerns from lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. The U.S. pharmaceutical market alone was $333 billion in 2014.[1] Critics cite the escalating cost of certain specialty drugs as a leading cause of the high cost of health care, and some argue that price disparities have a disproportionate effect on certain groups. Accordingly, it has been argued that the federal government already has a responsibility and the necessary legal tools to combat the high price of drugs, e.g., through its procurement procedures. Yet combating disproportionate drug prices through government procurement should be a carefully considered process and not one based on misrepresentations of the history and rationale behind federal procurement procedures.

Federal Government Procurement Overview

The U.S. government oversees a vast and complex procurement system, including the General Services Administration (e.g., real estate, property, and services), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) system, and vast federal contracting. In sum, the annual federal budget will exceed $4.4 trillion in 2019.[2] Advocates note that the federal government spent nearly $1.1 trillion on health care alone in 2018.[3] In the health care sector, the federal government’s role is also exemplified by the following categories of activity: the direct purchasing of pharmaceutical through federal agency programs including, the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Defense, Indian Health Service, and Federal Bureau of Prisons; indirectly through other federally sponsored health insurance programs, notably Medicare and Medicaid; and, more broadly through its oversight and other involvement with private sector health insurance plans.

There is no denying that the federal government is a significant participant in the health care system. In the aforementioned contexts, the government generally seeks the legal right to use a patented product (e.g., a medicine or medical device) at a specified purchase price. But federal law provides a mechanism for the government to procure patented products and services without a specific authorization, license, or consent. Further, federal law allows it to use patents without prior consent (this is the quintessential definition of infringement), under limited circumstances, in exchange for compensation to the patent holder. Advocates argue that the federal government should now broadly and unprecedentedly employ this procurement power to combat high drug prices.

Congress’ Enactment of Section 1498(a)

In the early 1900s, Congress enacted legislation permitting the federal government to use patented products without the permission of the rights holder in exchange for some compensation. The statute, § 1498, states:

Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.

28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (emphasis added).

Congress enacted this law (and its subsequent amendments) in response to a number of war time and national security needs, which required the government and its federal contractors to use the inventions of recalcitrant patent owners. In essence, § 1498(a) is a waiver of the federal government’s historic sovereign immunity (hence allowing for lawsuits against the government) while ensuring that the patent owners receive fair compensation. As the statute currently reads, this government intervention is offset by promising “reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.”

Section 1498 emerged as a solution to a technical standing problem that was preventing IP owners from suing the government for infringement (going back into the 1800s) without reverting to legal fictions such as implied contract. It did not arise simply as strong-arm takings power to benefit the government and contractors. Rather, it is a careful compromise to provide a clear path forward for IP owners while freeing the government from the threats of litigation, such as injunctive relief. While any government intervention in the marketplace must be viewed with some suspicion, the statute ensures that the government will recognize the contribution of innovators through some form of compensation (e.g., an ex post facto royalty).

Scholars conclude that that the statute’s original purpose was to allow the federal government and contractors more flexibility in activities during war time efforts[4]—for example, the government’s procurement of the parts necessary for military equipment or naval ship building. The statute has been used in very few other categories. The Supreme Court observed:

The intention and purpose of Congress in the Act of 1918 was to stimulate contractors to furnish what was needed for the War, without fear of becoming liable themselves for infringements to inventors or the owners or assignees of patents. The letter of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, upon which the Act of 1918 was passed, leaves no doubt that this was the occasion for it.

Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 345 (1928).

The law and literature reveals two important aspects about § 1498(a). First, it was intended for the government’s limited use of a certain category of patented inventors while respecting their innovative contribution with compensation for their efforts. Rather than civilian inventions, the § 1498(a) case law presents a theme: a series of military, war time, and post-war research related inventions, including weapons, communications equipment involving the Signal Corps of the Army, to stealth airplane carbon fiber fighter plane panels.[5] Second, it was intended as a war time safety valve against recalcitrant inventors – essentially, as a national defense provision. It has been used rarely and in limited contexts. Even when the nation faced an anthrax attack scare, its use was threatened by then HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, but never actually used.[6] Moreover, it is not a price control mechanism. Nowhere in the text of the statute, the legislative history, nor Supreme Court case law endorses § 1498 as a discount federal procurement mechanism. In other words, § 1498(a) is not a “Groupon” for discounted federal shopping sprees.

Even those advocating for the use § 1498 as a discount procurement tool note a number of potential problems, which include the likelihood of undercompensating innovators and undermining pharmaceutical firms’ incentives to innovate, the potential overuse by the federal government, and giving too much responsibility and discretion to courts to make decisions in this category. Critics of the statute’s use in this context observe that as with any government intervention in the marketplace, consequently, it has a number of negative effects—e.g., chilling innovation, more uncertainty around R&D. The issue about preserving the incentives for R&D for new cutting-edge medicines is not abstract. A Tufts University center study reports that, on average, more than $2.6 billion is spent on R&D for a new prescription drug that gains market approval; the life-cycle cost rises to $2.9 billion when other post-approval develop costs are included.[7] In practice, for every drug that is successfully developed, reviewed, and made available to patients, many dozens more fail.[8] Due to this high failure rate and the costly investment in R&D, well-balanced intellectual property rights are essential for innovators to commercialize the products that do make it to market and improve—or even save—patients’ lives.

In practice, the use of § 1498(a) raises a number of other challenges. The application of a “reasonable royalty” itself leads to uncertainty and lengthy dispute settlement time frames. Ultimately, the retroactive decision of whatever truly is a “reasonable royalty” requires a heightened reliance on the courts to determine its “reasonableness.” The opponents note that this undermines certainty and chills the incentives for innovation. Also, the limited scope of the government’s direct applicability (e.g., prisons, Indian tribes) questions whether this makes its use either an ineffective solution for the public at-large or it will distort markets further by the misallocation of costs on different communities.

Notwithstanding its poor legal mooring for this purpose, in the end, § 1498 is an impractical tool for lowering drug pricing nationwide, vis-à-vis, the widespread government procurement of medicines in the national health care marketplace. As a general proposition, every fundamental understanding of government and liberty informs us that the federal government cannot just seize one’s property—house, livestock, vehicles—for free. Nor can the government use patented inventions (IP) for free.

Conclusion

Today, the Nation faces an increasing populist hue and cry surrounding a number of public health challenges, including the availability and affordability of patented pharmaceuticals. As the cost of drugs sharply rises, outpacing the rate of inflation, policy-makers consider a range of public policy options. The use of a compulsory license or the § 1498 statute offers a superficial false hope/promise to reduce health care spending. Hence, it is naïve to suggest that the government procurement process is designed to give short shrift to inventors by depriving them of just compensation.

Nothing in the § 1498 statute’s wording, history, nor congressionally-mandated purpose supports its role as either a general procurement or price control tool. As with all government interventions into the market place, it has potential consequences. In this context, the consequences are ultimately harmful, e.g., threatening to harm future medical innovation by reducing the incentives for R&D and creating uncertainty in the marketplace. While the goals at the heart of this debate are quite worthy (i.e., increased drug availability and affordability), policy-makers should consider other measures that avoid the inevitable negative consequences. The federal government has an alternate, powerful array of tools at its disposal to improve the access and quality for health care. In sum, § 1498 was never contemplated to be a general procurement discount vehicle—hence the federal government should not begin mistakenly prescribing it.

[1] https://www.trade.gov/topmarkets/pdf/Pharmaceuticals_Executive_Summary.pdf.

[2] The federal government purchases hundreds of billions of dollars of goods and services annually through an array of intricate procurement procedures and systems. These systems are based on willing sellers who work within the government framework (e.g., the schedules also known as Federal Supply Schedules and the Multiple Award Schedules (MAS)) to ensure fairness and a level playing field with pre-negotiated prices rather than letting the federal government use patented products without compensation. See generally https://www.gsa.gov/buying-selling/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules.

[3] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-federal-government-spend-health-care (The break down includes spending Medicare ($583 billion), the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) ($399 billion), and veteran’s medical ($70 billion)).

[4] Sean M. O’Connor, Taking, Tort, or Crown Right? The Confused Early History of Government Patent Policy, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 145-204 (2012).

[5] Id. at 190.

[6] “Thompson Negotiating With Drug Companies to Purchase Anthrax Antibiotics; Sees No Need to Override Cipro Patent,” June 11, 2009 (“Tony Jewell, an HHS spokesperson, said that agency officials ‘do not believe’ that breaking the patent is necessary, adding, ‘It would not save money to break the patent.'” https://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00007586/.

[7] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/.

[8] “The overall attrition rate for new drugs remains high—‘horrendously high’ according to [U.S.] NIH Director Francis Collins—and may be increasing. Recent estimates place the phase 2 failure rate at sixty-five to seventy percent and even higher for drugs with new mechanisms of action.” Erika Lietzan, The Drug Innovation Paradox, 83 Missouri Law Review 39 at 78-79 (2018) (describing the U.S. regime).

Categories
Innovation Patent Law Pharma

A Cure Worse Than the Disease? Proposed Changes to European Patent Law are Threatening Pharmaceutical Innovation

a hand reaching for a hanging, shining keyInnovation is all around us. We love and appreciate the latest video games, software apps, and smartphones. We await the integration of self-driving cars and other forms of artificial intelligence. Beyond the gadgets and luxuries we think we can’t live without, there are even more essential products that affect the lives of millions around the world on a daily basis. Patented medicines are at the top of the list of innovations that save lives and preserve the quality of life. Unfortunately, some proposed changes to European patent law are jeopardizing the development and delivery of safe and effective drugs, threatening jobs and innovation, and putting global public health at risk.

Policy-makers and the public acknowledge that balance is critical in the legal regimes governing essential medicines. Our generation is the beneficiary of patent protections which strike a balance. European regulators have long acknowledged that the benefits of new cures (e.g., arising from the research and development of therapies) require a societal investment in the form of intensive capital resources and strong intellectual property protection. In turn, a balanced system includes a reasonable patent term as a quid pro quo for the public disclosure of knowledge and the follow-on generic industry.

The medicines sector highlights the need for that careful balance, as well as the success of the current legal regime. New drug research and the development of new cures is extremely capital intensive. Legions of European scientists, engineers, and clinicians can work for years on a new drug’s development and regulatory review. A recent Tufts University center study reports that, on average, more than $2.6 billion is spent on R&D for a new prescription drug that gains market approval; the life-cycle cost rises to $2.9 billion when other post-approval development costs are included.[1] This is a 145% increase, correcting for inflation, over the estimate the center made in 2003.

In practice, for every drug that is successfully developed, reviewed, and made available to patients, many dozens more fail. CPIP Senior Scholar Erika Lietzan has observed:

The overall attrition rate for new drugs remains high—‘horrendously high’ according to [U.S.] NIH Director Francis Collins—and may be increasing. Recent estimates place the phase 2 failure rate at sixty-five to seventy percent and even higher for drugs with new mechanisms of action.[2]

Due to this high failure rate and costly investment in R&D, well-balanced intellectual property rights are essential for innovators to commercialize the products that do make it to market and improve—or even save—consumers’ lives.

Medicines must be safe and effective, and while regulatory review is essential, it is a time-consuming and highly expensive process. The reality is that the essential patent term is eaten away by years of regulatory review delay.[3] This extra review process is what makes the investment and research questions in the bio-pharmaceutical space so different from a smartphone or the latest virtual reality entertainment software. Professor Lietzan christened this the “innovation paradox.” She explains:

In medicine today, we face an innovation paradox. Companies that develop new medicines depend on a period of exclusive marketing after approval, to fund their research and development programs. This period is made possible by patent protection and regulatory data exclusivity.[4]

Likewise, it is the reason that there needs to be some supplementary legal protection to raise new capital and investments for cures and therapies.

The practical effect is that the necessary regulatory review results in the loss of years of effective patent term protection, warranting special treatment for innovative pharmaceutical products that come to market with little time to realize the benefits of exclusivity. In the 1990s, European policy-makers successfully restored the balance between innovation and the public interest by establishing the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC), which provides limited exclusive legal protection after a patent’s expiry.

Supplemental Protection Certificates Ensure a Necessary Balance

Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) reinforce the balance between the rights of innovators and the public by extending the exclusive term for a variety of compounds, e.g., human and veterinary medicines and plant products. SPCs provide a limited extension of legal protections (e.g., exclusivity capped at five-and-one-half years) to compensate for the patent term effectively lost during the regulatory review process to ensure safety and efficacy.

Since SPCs were established, it is estimated that more than 20,000 SPCs for patented products have been filed in Europe during the period 1991–2016.[5] Despite the SPC’s twenty-plus-year track record of success, it, and the balance it preserves, is coming under pressure due to special interest lobbying by the generic drug industry.

The European Commission (EC) recently proposed waiving the SPC for pharmaceuticals and biosimilars[6] and permitting limited generic drug protection via the following two provisions prior to the SPC’s expiration:

(1) The “Manufacturing Provision.” This proposal would “allow EU generic or biosimilar manufacturers to develop and store generic or biosimilar manufacturers in Europe . . . with the goal of enabling immediate generic or biosimilar market entry following the expiration of intellectual property protections . . . .”

(2) The “Export Provision.” This proposal would “allow generic or biosimilar manufacturers to export products to countries where no intellectual property protection for the products is in place.”

While these two proposals are touted as limited in scope, their impact would be significant and detrimental on many fronts across Europe, including for the public health, innovation, jobs, and trade.

The Dangerous Impact of SPC Waiver

The overall impact of the SPC waiver threatens the balance that has worked so well for twenty-plus years, plain and simple. Specifically, the negative impact and risks are evidenced through the inherent complexity of a medicine’s regulatory review process, undermining the public health via counterfeit medicines, and harming Europe’s economy and jobs.

a. Risks of Limiting Innovation for a Variety of Important New Compounds and Cures

 

The most important reason to preserve the current balance is that it is a proven path to develop new medicines for the public’s health. Recently, a commentator highlighted two critical medicines that would not be available to patients, but for the opportunity afforded by the SPC process: (1) Fingolimod (a drug to treat renal failure after a kidney transplant that was subsequently brought to the market for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)); and, (2) Secukinumab (a treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis (a type of spinal arthritis) that required an extended, more complicated clinical trial review period).[7] In both cases, the benefits of the additional period of exclusivity under the SPC provided the necessary time and resources for the follow-on clinical trials and research for the medicine’s safety and efficacy review.

Ultimately, SPCs benefit capital intensive pursuits, such as new drug discovery and development, by yielding new drugs or new applications for such drugs. More importantly, the patients who need these drugs clearly benefit. As Europe looks to an aging population and increasing health care costs, there is an ever growing need for effective cures for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis (MS), cancers, and others requiring orphan drugs.[8] The SPC system is an important part of how the next generation of pioneering life-saving medicines will come into being.

b. Risk to the Public Health and Safety Through Counterfeit Medicines

 

Another key concern for stakeholders and the public at-large resulting from the current proposals is the inevitable increase of piracy and counterfeiting of these medicines. Global piracy and counterfeiting of medicines is big business. A 2016 study estimated that drug piracy costs Europe more than €10 billion each year, may result in the loss of up to 40,000 direct jobs, and may have a total direct and indirect negative impact of over €17 billion and 90,000 job losses.[9]

In addition to the significant financial impact, piracy and counterfeiting is a matter of public health and safety. It is often the case that the counterfeit medicines are manufactured without sufficient quality controls, or worse, with unsafe or dangerous substitute ingredients. The SPC Export Provision waiver heightens the risk that poor quality or unsafe counterfeits will be diverted across borders. Counterfeit drugs are a massive public health risk throughout Europe and big business for criminal enterprises that either ship fake, unsafe medicine or divert counterfeits across borders trying to profit on the product demand and price differentials among nations.

The SPC Export Provision waiver will ultimately increase medicines piracy and counterfeiting on many grounds, including making it difficult to distinguish between medicines produced legally in one country and other jurisdictions without adequate IP protection, making it difficult to prevent product diversion, and diminishing quality control due to infringement.

c. The European Economic Case: Jobs and Trade

 

Europe boasts a first-class research-based pharmaceutical industry which is estimated to have invested €31.5 billion in R&D in 2015 alone.[10] The leading European countries which contribute to this annual R&D investment include Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. The research industry trade association, EFPIA, explains some of the economic benefits of the SPC regime:

The SPC is part of an incentives framework that helps to generate the 35 billion in investment in R&D in Europe by the research-based industry. . . . It helps to safeguard over 750,000 jobs directly employed by biopharmaceutical companies and critically facilitates, research into unmet medical needs, finding treatments and cures for patients across Europe and beyond.[11]

R&D Investment in Europe (2016). Germany, 19%. France, 15%. Italy, 4%. Spain, 3%. U.K., 16%. Rest of Europe, 43%.

European Pharmaceutical Industry: Recent Trends and Statistics[12]

Evaluating the economic factors around an industrial policy proposal—new manufactured units, SMEs, direct and indirect jobs—is a legitimate part of the policy debate. In the public health context, it is one of several factors for policy-makers. Both sides of the debate have offered competing economic analyses of the impact of the waiver.[13] However, the past is prologue, and Europe has 20-plus years of a positive economic experience with the SPC regime.

Today’s debate over the SPC waiver is reminiscent to biotechnology patentability debates in the 1980s that weakened intellectual property rights and drove innovative activity out of Europe. As a recent article explains, the legal choices made by Europe during that crucial era led to an irreparable loss of its technological global leadership in the biotech and health care arena:

Europe lost the competitive and commercial edge in biotechnology to the U.S., which had the foresight to protect a new and innovative industry. This new industry both revolutionized modern medical research and healthcare treatments and brought economic growth to the many U.S. cities in which these new companies sprouted and flourished.[14]

Likewise, additional commentators warn that an SPC waiver poses a threat to Europe’s global competiveness: “Europe is becoming an innovation backwater, easily outspent on R&D by peer nations such as the United States, Japan, South Korea and Australia, according to the 2017 European Innovation Scorecard.”[15] While there are allegations that the SPC waiver would be beneficial for European jobs and its economy, this has been debunked for their flawed methodology or extreme overstatement of the facts.[16]

Conclusion

The EC’s proposed SPC waiver provisions are a cure far worse than the disease. The policy debate around this subject boils down to whether Europe wants a strong or a weak health care system for its citizens. The purported goals advanced by special interest tactics certainly sound noble: more competition, lower prices. In fact, the opposite ignoble result is an inevitable undermining of the incentives for the discovery and development new medicines.

The EC should reconsider the proposed waiver for many reasons. The current SPC system offers a successful twenty-year-plus track record. It respects the balance between patients and the medicines innovation ecosystem. The waiver will directly stifle innovation in the guise of fostering competition, as well as dampen the future of innovative medicines and harm the European economy. One must conclude that the SPC waiver should be reconsidered for the sake of the public health and future well-being of the European citizenry.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/.

[2] Erika Lietzan, The Drug Innovation Paradox, 83 Missouri Law Review 39 at 78-79 (2018) (describing the U.S. regime), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2948604.

[3] Id. at 59 (“Through the 1970s, as the modern new drug premarket paradigm took shape, scholars and policymakers became aware of diminishing effective patent life. Because inventors typically file active ingredient patent applications before clinical testing starts, these patents tend to issue before or during the trials. At the time, a patent lasted for seventeen years from issuance. Today, it generally lasts for twenty years from the filing of the patent application. In either case, a significant portion of the term of an active ingredient patent may lapse before FDA approves the marketing application. This shortens the period of time that the drug sponsor may exploit the invention in the market while enjoying patent rights.”).

[4] Id.

[5] Malwina Mejer, 25 years of SPC protection for medicinal products in Europe: Insights and challenges (May 2017), available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/25-years-spc-protection-medicinal-products-europe-insights-and-challenges_en.

[6] The European Medicines Agency (EMA) explains that “[a] biosimilar is a biological medicine highly similar to another already approved biological medicine (the ‘reference medicine’). Biosimilars are approved according to the same standards of pharmaceutical quality, safety and efficacy that apply to all biological medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is responsible for evaluating the majority of applications to market biosimilars in the European Union (EU). Biological medicines offer treatment options for patients with chronic and often disabling conditions such as diabetes, autoimmune disease and cancers.” Available at https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/biosimilar-medicines-overview.

[7] Nathalie Moll, Betting on innovation, the case for the SPC, available at https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/blog-articles/betting-on-innovation-the-case-for-the-spc/.

[8] The European Medicines Agency (EMA) notes that “[a]bout 30 million people living in the European Union (EU) suffer from a rare disease. The [EMA] plays a central role in facilitating the development and authorization of medicines for rare diseases, which are termed ‘orphan medicines’ in the medical world.” Available at https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/orphan-designation.

[9] http://www.pharmexec.com/counterfeit-drugs-cost-europe-more-10-billion-year.

[10] https://www.ihealthcareanalyst.com/european-pharmaceutical-industry-recent-trends-statistics/.

[11] https://efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/efpia-statement-on-the-implementation-of-the-spc-manufacturing-waiver/.

[12] https://www.ihealthcareanalyst.com/european-pharmaceutical-industry-recent-trends-statistics/.

[13] http://ecipe.org/blog/ec-spc/; https://www.medicinesforeurope.com/newsroom/.

[14] Kevin Madigan & Adam Mossoff, Turning Gold Into Lead: How Patent Eligibility Doctrine is Undermining U.S. Leadership in Innovation, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 939 (2017) (“We believe these are sensible provisions to avoid weakening Europe’s IP framework further, particularly in today’s context of intense global competition for pharmaceutical research and development investment.”), available https://ssrn.com/abstract=2943431.

[15] See, e.g., Philip Stevens, The European Commission’s pharmaceutical innovation incentives review is at risk of serious overreach, available at http://ecipe.org/blog/ec-spc/.

[16] Sussell et al, Reconsidering the economic impact of the EU manufacturing and export provisions, J. of Generic Medicines, 1-17. (citing arithmetic error and providing a counter factual analysis of the unit, job, SME, and economic benefits in a recent generic industry study praising the SPC waiver proposal).

Categories
Innovate4Health Innovation

CPIP and ITIF Release Innovate4Health Report on Role of IP in Solving Global Health Challenges

Innovate4HealthThis past Tuesday, CPIP and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released our joint report: Innovate4Health: How Innovators Are Solving Global Health Challenges. The report details 25 important healthcare innovations that are being created by and for people in the developing world, where some of the most urgent challenges remain. Each of these innovations is supported by a strong intellectual property system, and many would not be viable without the security provided by these rights.

The video from our release event this past Tuesday can be found here and is embedded below. The full Innovate4Health report can be found here, and the Executive Summary is copied below. The individual stories can also be found here on the project’s Medium website.

Innovate4Health: How Innovators Are Solving Global Health Challenges

Executive Summary

Many of the world’s biggest challenges are health challenges. The good news is that, more than ever, people are meeting these challenges with innovative solutions.

While we still face great difficulties, people all over the world live better than ever before thanks to innovation. New medicines prevent or alleviate disease. New devices diagnose problems, repair bodies, and overcome physical challenges. Still other inventions keep vaccines and medicines fresh and effective or ensure their authenticity. New business models help innovation to happen and ensure that it reaches those who need it.

Many of these innovations are secured by intellectual property rights, which support the ability of innovators to invent and bring solutions to market. Property rights, particularly intellectual property rights, foster the freedom of many hands and many minds to work on challenging problems. They put decisions in the hands of those closest to problems—innovators with knowledge of potential solutions and caregivers and consumers who understand their own needs best.

With just a bit of reflection, it becomes clear that innovation and the property rights that secure it are key to meeting global health problems. Sometimes, however, the blinding light of necessity makes it hard to see this fact. When people are in need, it is all too easy to grow impatient with the rights of innovators. When that happens, innovators get treated as an obstacle.

We think that better public policy would result from better understanding of how innovation can meet global health challenges. Our organizations, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), both non-profit, non-partisan research organizations, have teamed up to tell the exciting story of how innovation is making the world healthier.

Our Innovate4Health initiative culminates with this report, profiling 25 original case studies showcasing how innovators, many in developing countries, are tackling life-sciences/healthcare innovation in their nations and across the broader developing world. The 25 case studies are organized into the six following themes:

  • Adapting healthcare interventions for environments where resources and infrastructure are challenging;
  • Providing affordable and robust tests for diagnosing diseases;
  • Improving HIV diagnosis and care;
  • Affordable interventions to meet basic needs in challenging environments;
  • Getting healthcare to the people in places where it’s hard for people to come to the healthcare;
  • Fostering health innovation in emerging economies.

Collectively the case studies tell a compelling and inspiring story of how entrepreneurs are creating IP-enabled life-sciences innovations that are helping to tackle some of the world’s toughest health issues.

To read the report, please click here.

Categories
Innovate4Health Innovation

Innovate4Health: SaTo Pan Delivers a Sustainable Solution to the Sanitation Crisis in Developing Nations

This post is one of a series in the #Innovate4Health policy research initiative.

Innovate4HealthBy Michael O’Keefe

Poor sanitation poses an ongoing threat to the health and well-being of people in the developing world. Severe health problems, death, and disease can be directly linked to unsafe hygiene practices that continue to plague many countries. A UN Fact Sheet notes that 2.3 billion people lack access to improved sanitation. Open-air defecation in particular is a widespread concern, as it leads to the spread of communicable diseases. According to the WHO: “Poor sanitation is linked to transmission of diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid and polio.”

One way in which these diseases spread is through the lack of proper toilet or latrine facilities. The WHO claims that 2.4 billion people do not have access to such facilities, with 946 million instead practicing open-air defecation.

SaTo panIn 2012, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy, and International Development Enterprises (iDE), American Standard Brands developed a potential solution to the hygiene problems stemming from the lack of proper toilet facilities. The SaTo pan – deriving its name from “Safe Toilet” – is an attempt to limit the transmission of disease by ensuring that the toilets being used are closed off from the open air, thus preventing insects or other vectors from communicating those diseases. The basic design is a plastic mold that fits into a concrete base over a pit, which means it can be used even when basic plumbing or sewer infrastructure is absent.

Smell-free, eliminates flies, easy cleanAccess to proper sanitation and clean water is vital for the health and safety of growing populations in both urban and rural areas. When human feces are not disposed of effectively, it can cause a number of health problems. Chronic illnesses spread by feces, such as enteropathy, encephalitis, and diarrhea, can weaken adults as well as children and prevent them from retaining nutrients, potentially causing health problems for their offspring as well. Even when human waste is disposed of in a pit, rather than left out in the open, disease vectors such as flies can potentially still access it, turning latrines into persistent sources of disease for whole communities.

Patent diagrams for SaTo panInvented by Jim McHale, Daigo Ishiyama and Greg Gatarz, the SaTo pan operates much like a trap door, using a counterweight to stay closed except for allowing the passage of waste. The plastic design is cheap and acts as an effective seal over the toilet. In addition to the sanitary benefits, the SaTo pan also acts as a basic safety measure. Because of the nature of some open-pit latrines, young children face the risk of falling inside. When installing SaTo pans in Uganda, one organization reported this as a notable benefit to the communities due to the particular design of latrines in the areas they worked in.

The research team at American Standard settled on the SaTo pan concept after observing the open-pit style latrines commonly used in Bangladesh. Before the pans were installed, such latrines remained open to the air at all times, which meant that not only was the smell free to travel, but flies and other insects could enter and exit the pit, carrying a host of diseases with them. As demonstrated in this video, the pan can be “flushed” after use with a pot of water, but otherwise blocks any unwanted traffic such as insects.

Diagram of SaTo pan (Self-sealing trap door; seal shuts out flies, other insects, and odors)Crucially, the design of the pan allows for potential variations according to local customs and demands, such as using the facilities by squatting or sitting or adapting to the shape of the pit for the latrine. The core concept around which the pan is based is the counterweighted “flapper” itself. The counterweight is specifically set so that the flap remains closed until the additional force of water – not just the waste itself – is poured into the pan. The pour-flush mechanic also creates a liquid seal, with a minimal amount of water remaining on top of the flap after use to help ensure prevention of transmission of insects or gases. This approach, utilizing a basic mechanism while leaving room for responsive adjustments in design, allows the SaTo pan to be adapted globally while maintaining a simple but effective means of providing basic health benefits.

In 2015, American Standard received the Patents for Humanity award from the USPTO for its design of the (then-pending patent application) SaTo pan toilet. The counterweighted trapdoor is significantly more effective than standard squat-hole covers and avoids the risk of blockage that comes with more complex, alternative designs. Utilizing the patented design also allows American Standard to fully gauge the needs of the market, providing the basis for ongoing production and development.

Although American Standard is more generally known as a plumbing manufacturer, the SaTo pan has become a key part of their business structure. American Standard was purchased by the LIXIL Corporation in 2013, and brought within the LIXIL Water Technology (LWT) business unit in 2015. In 2016, LIXIL announced that it was establishing a special unit within LWT devoted to supporting continued development of the SaTo. Currently, three new alternative models of the SaTo pan are in development to meet the varying need of different regions. Although the initial design functions well in areas such as Bangladesh, bringing it to Sub-Saharan Africa presents new challenges, primarily that there is significantly less access to water. As the counterweight system relies on water for its operation, this poses a hurdle to its effectiveness in such regions.

American Standard has been able to use the SaTo pan design as the basis for a broad-ranging business strategy. From 2013-2014, American Standard implemented a donation program, Flush for Good, with each sale of one of its Champion toilets funding the donation of a SaTo pan. 500,000 have been donated to Bangladesh alone. Other donation programs include sending SaTo pans to Nepal after the recent earthquakes and partnerships with NGOs such as UNICEF and Save the Children. By the middle of 2016, SaTo pans had been installed in 14 countries, including Uganda, Haiti, Malawi, Nigeria and the Philippines.

#Innovate4Health is a joint research project by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). This project highlights how intellectual property-driven innovation can address global health challenges. If you have questions, comments, or a suggestion for a story we should highlight, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact Devlin Hartline at jhartli2@gmu.edu.

Categories
Innovate4Health Innovation

Innovate4Health: Indian Startup Develops Nanomaterial Filter to Help Solve Global Drinking Water Crisis

This post is one of a series in the #Innovate4Health policy research initiative.

Innovate4HealthBy Gleb Savich

Access to clean water remains a critical issue on a global scale. According to the latest statistics by the World Health Organization (WHO), 844 million people lack a basic drinking water service and at least 2 billion people use contaminated water that can transmit cholera, dysentery, typhoid, polio, and other diseases. Contaminated drinking water causes more than 500,000 deaths each year. And in low- and middle-income countries, more than one-third of the health care facilities lack even soap and water for handwashing.

many hands catching water under a faucetThis drinking water crisis disproportionately affects the poor in the developing world. However, problems with access to safe drinking water may arise in any part of the world due to man-made or natural disasters—including in the United States. One recent example is the public health crisis that erupted in Flint, Michigan, where drinking water became contaminated with lead when the city switched to a different water source.

Natural disasters may disrupt the water supply in areas that normally have access to safe drinking water. As of October 2017, over a month after Hurricane Maria devastated the island of Puerto Rico, many of its residents still did not have access to clean water, precipitating an outbreak of leptospirosis, a rare bacterial disease.

Climate change, population growth, and urbanization pose further challenges to water supply systems. According to the World Health Organization, by 2025, half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. These varied challenges to one of humanity’s most fundamental problems require flexible and creative solutions. 

Dr. Thalappil Pradeep is a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras. His decades of research focusing on nanomaterials has led to several discoveries that have already begun to help solve the global problem of access to clean drinking water.

The first breakthrough came in 2004 when Dr. Pradeep’s team developed nanoparticles that can break down certain pesticides dissolved in water. Many of these chemicals are not removable by standard water filters and have been shown to pose environmental and health risks. Although the use of some of these pesticides is banned, the compounds persist in the environment decades later. The problem is particularly relevant in India, one of the world’s largest pesticide producers, where pesticide water contamination is a serious problem in certain areas.

enlarged image of a moleculeThe pesticide removal technology developed by Dr. Pradeep and his colleagues works by utilizing the ability of gold and silver nanoparticles to bind pesticides from flowing water through adsorption. Dr. Pradeep and his coinventor obtained both Indian and U.S. patents on their technology and licensed it to Eureka Forbes, an Indian manufacturer of vacuum cleaners and water purifiers.

The technology is estimated to have reached 7.5 million people and is the first nanomaterials-based water filter to be commercialized. To further develop nanomaterials-based water filtration technologies, Dr. Pradeep and his team founded a startup, InnoNano Research, in 2004.

Their next breakthrough came in 2012, when the team developed a novel nanomaterial capable of being adapted for the removal of multiple types of water contaminants. The new filter, dubbed AMRIT for Arsenic and Metal Removal by Indian Technology, can remove microbial contamination as well as arsenic, iron, and other heavy metals from drinking water.

The antimicrobial properties of silver ions were well known, but their large-scale implementation for water filtration had been hampered by technological obstacles, such as lack of suitable substrates in which to embed the ions. The novel nanoparticle material developed by Dr. Pradeep and his team solves these issues.

Silver nanoparticles are embedded in this material to remove microbes, while the incorporation of other compounds allows for the removal of other contaminants. For example, the incorporation of iron achieves the removal of both iron and arsenic. Thus, this technology allows for manufacturing of multistage filtration systems suitable for particular needs.

Discussing this filtration system, Dr. Pradeep explains: “If this will be useful for water, it has to be very cheap, have a low carbon footprint, require no electricity, and should not contaminate water sources in the process.” And his team’s technology meets these challenges. According to : Dr. Pradeep, manufacturing requires no heating or electricity and uses materials with a low carbon footprint.

Removal of arsenic from drinking water is of particular interest in India, where ground waters used for drinking and irrigation are often contaminated with dangerous levels of arsenic. To begin addressing this problem, by the summer of 2016, AMRIT filters were installed in 750 locations in several Indian provinces, providing clean water to nearly half a million people.

In 2016, InnoNano Research succeeded in securing one of the largest investments for an Indian tech startup when it obtained $18 million from Nanoholdings LLC, a U.S. venture capital firm specializing in investing into material science-based energy and water startups. This investment is particularly significant in light of the difficulties that Indian startups often face when it comes to scaling up their technologies.

Dr. Pradeep explains: “We have no efficient mechanisms for partnering, scaling and incubating – those are the lacunae in our system.” While universities provide startups with access to labs and research grants, more funding is needed to achieve the scale necessary for further product development.

Leveraging intellectual property enables startups to raise funds necessary to bring their innovations to those who need them. With the help of Nanoholdings LLC, Dr. Pradeep hopes to expand the company’s operations into Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, and to continue developing the technology to filter out other dangerous contaminants found in drinking water.

#Innovate4Health is a joint research project by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). This project highlights how intellectual property-driven innovation can address global health challenges. If you have questions, comments, or a suggestion for a story we should highlight, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact Devlin Hartline at jhartli2@gmu.edu.

Categories
Innovate4Health Innovation

Innovate4Health: Miriam Bridges the Gap Between Developing-World Infrastructure and Cancer Detection

This post is one of a series in the #Innovate4Health policy research initiative.

Innovate4HealthBy Alex Summerton

Originally a disease diagnosed only in developed countries, cancer is now a leading cause of death in the developing world with over half of all new cases annually. The rise in cancer in the developing world is attributed to improving technological, medical, and socioeconomic conditions. People are living longer due to reducing other causes of mortality such as infectious disease, unsanitary conditions, and maternal and infant mortality. The result is populations living long enough to begin seeing end of life diseases like cancer.

However, the advances leading to the higher prevalence of cancer in the developing world have not been accompanied by the advances to fight it. Treatment costs remain prohibitively high. Detection occurs late during the disease’s progression, generally after symptoms begin to present and chances of survival decrease. Underdeveloped infrastructure makes accessibility to screening and treatment difficult. Doctors’ offices can be remote and crowded, and trained oncologists are few and far between, leaving necessary expertise inaccessible to patients.

The overall effect is a developed-world disease outstripping developing-world technology and infrastructure.

Miroculus aims to combat the challenges of cancer screening, in both the developed and developing world, by providing accurate, low-cost, and accessible technologies that can be easily deployed at the earliest stages when treatment is cheaper and more effective. Founded by Alejandro Tocigl, Foteini Christodoulou, and Jorge Soto, Miroculus is developing a method of screening for cancers via microRNA.

The flagship product of Miroculus is Miriam, a cancer detection platform enabling accurate, early screening of cancer. Debuted at TEDGlobal in 2014, Miriam is a non-invasive tool that can rapidly screen for a wide range of cancers. Its design means it can be deployed during routine health examinations, rather than as part of cancer testing once symptoms have presented. Miriam works by assaying blood for the presence of microRNAs. Miroculus’s team has shown that certain microRNAs in a patient’s blood are correlated with specific types of cancer. So far, Miroculus has proven the concept of enabling Miriam to detect pancreatic, lung, breast, and hepatic cancer.

gloved hand holding screening toolMiriam achieves its goals through a simple yet elegant construction, requiring only a camera, computer, and testing substrate in a standard well plate. Each well contains a reactant keyed to a specific microRNA. A patient’s sample is added to each well and tested for the presence of microRNA. When the particular microRNA in the well is present in the patient’s sample, the reaction produces a luminescent effect. Miriam’s camera monitors these reactions by recording the change in luminosity of the wells during testing, sending these images via Miriam’s computer to Miroculus’s cloud computer. Miroculus then analyzes the pattern to determine which microRNAs are present and whether the patient has cancer.

Miriam’s advantageous three piece construction provides low-cost implementation while remaining clinically effective. Driven by Miroculus’s objective to democratize cancer screening technology, a Miriam testing platform can be created using cheap and readily available technologies in the developing world. During Miriam’s first debut, one of the founders showed the technology being deployed via a 3D-printed test chamber and a smartphone. Both 3D printing and smartphones are viewed as platforms for bringing developed-world medical technologies to the developing world. Combining innovative biological science and versatile technology such as 3D printing and smartphones allows Miriam to substitute for complex specialized equipment requiring far more training and resources to implement.

Miroculus is employing a blend of IP protections in the distribution of Miriam. It is combining an open source release of how to construct the Miriam platform, including copyrighted design plans for making the 3D printed device, with patent protection over its microRNA based testing method. Choosing to use this dual IP protection allows Miroculus to ensure a quality product in real world use with sufficient income to both run the company and develop the next generation of technologies.

To test the deployment and efficacy of Miriam, Miroculus has elected to employ open source distribution of Miriam. Instructions for building a fully functional Miriam are currently available on GitHub, including 3D printing instructions and software, firmware, and hardware instructions for a testing computer implemented on Arduino. These documents and code are published under open source licenses. This owner-driven free exercise of rights provides Miroculus with two major advantages. First, Miroculus can enjoy open collaboration and improvement on Miriam’s design and software. Second, making Miriam open source can encourage the adoption of the technology leading to additional economies of scale and providing Miroculus reputational benefits in the marketplace.

Miroculus is also utilizing patent protection for aspects of Miriam that require technical sophistication beyond having access to a 3D printer. It is globally seeking patents for testing wells and the detection system. By patenting the disposable wells, Miroculus can secure a return on its research and investment into Miriam. Because Miroculus views supplying the testing wells as the best income strategy for the technology, with revenue from supplying platforms being only incidental, Miroculus will be able to leverage the low-cost adoption of Miriam afforded by delivering an open source platform.

Miriam is a story of modern technology being used to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing world. Miroculus has a goal of enabling cheap, routine screenings for a wide range of cancers to lower the costs, both economic and human, of the disease. By making its testing device easily available, Miroculus aims to reach its goal of accessibility. And by securing patent protection for its testing wells, Miroculus will be able to ensure a return on its technology. This will allow further development and democratization of the necessary technology for combating the world’s most pressing diseases.

#Innovate4Health is a joint research project by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). This project highlights how intellectual property-driven innovation can address global health challenges. If you have questions, comments, or a suggestion for a story we should highlight, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact Devlin Hartline at jhartli2@gmu.edu.