The Case of the Missing Device Patents, or: Why Device Patents Matter

66 Pages Posted: 22 Sep 2022 Last revised: 8 Feb 2023

See all articles by Erika Lietzan

Erika Lietzan

University of Missouri School of Law

Kristina M.L. Acri née Lybecker

Colorado College - Department of Economics & Business

Evan Weidner

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Date Written: September 19, 2022

Abstract

A company that earns premarket approval of its medical device is entitled to an extension of the term of one patent claiming the device, to make up for some of the time it spent doing premarket research. Yet, surprisingly, a mere thirteen percent of those eligible for this extension (also known as patent term “restoration”) ask for one. In contrast, most drug companies entitled to this same patent extension ask for one. In this paper, we attribute the result largely to differences between the two regulatory frameworks. In brief, because FDA classifies and regulates devices based on what they do and how they do it, rather than by their composition, and because the device framework, unlike the drug framework, does not offer a regulatory advantage to companies that make exact copies, the most important moment in the lifecycle of a new medical device is the moment a competitor designs an alternative device that accomplishes the same end result. This can happen within a few short years. By way of contrast, for drug innovators the critical lifecycle moment is generally no earlier than expiry of the active ingredient patent, which generally happens later. In other words, medical devices have much shorter commercial lifecycles. While some suggest that medical device patents are therefore less important than drug patents, our explanation indicates only that the length of the patents is less important. Recent empirical research (Graham 2009, Simon 2020) describes the role that medical device patents play early in the product lifecycle — often before regulatory approval — focusing on the foundation they provide for efficient exchanges of information and market transactions. Our paper builds on their work by (1) offering an account, grounded in reflection on the essential nature of the two regulatory frameworks, for the differing roles play by drug and device patents, and (2) offering an additional supportive data point, that although device patenting is increasing steadily, eligible device companies generally do not bother seeking patent extensions. It therefore also illustrates the role that regulatory design can play in dictating the value of patent length, which should be important for policy planners.

Keywords: patents, medical devices, innovation, FDA, intellectual property, drugs, drug patents

Suggested Citation

Lietzan, Erika and Acri née Lybecker, Kristina M.L. and Weidner, Evan, The Case of the Missing Device Patents, or: Why Device Patents Matter (September 19, 2022). XXXIII Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J.409 (2023), University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4223781

Erika Lietzan (Contact Author)

University of Missouri School of Law ( email )

Missouri Avenue & Conley Avenue
Columbia, MO MO 65211
United States

Kristina M.L. Acri née Lybecker

Colorado College - Department of Economics & Business ( email )

14 E Cache La Poudre Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
United States
719-389-6445 (Phone)
719-389-6927 (Fax)

Evan Weidner

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. ( email )

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
75
Abstract Views
901
Rank
575,429
PlumX Metrics