During recent years, expiry of blockbuster patents, short drug lifecycles, rising development costs, heightened health authority scrutiny, dispersing markets, increased competition and need for latest technologies have put the pharmaceutical industry under mounting pressure. Thus, product lifecycle management is a prerequisite for maximizing a product’s lifetime value, improving a company’s product development processes, using product-related information to make better business decisions, and delivering greater value to customers. In order to achieve these goals and develop regulatory strategies for product lifecycle management, the pharmaceutical company should establish an effective lifecycle management team. Incorporating patent lifecycle management in product lifecycle management greatly benefits brand companies as well as specialty pharma, drug delivery, biotech and generic companies. A pharmaceutical product’s life can be described in five distinct phases: development phase, approval phase, introduction phase, commercialization and quality management phase and decline phase. Each phase poses different challenges and provides different opportunities to be considered for fabrication of the product lifecycle management strategies. At the same time, the approach for product lifecycle management varies from country to country. A comparison of various exclusivities and time taken to review a new drug application/submission/market authorization in countries namely United States, European Union, Canada and India suggests that United States is most encouraging to employ various product lifecycle management strategies, European Union is equally good if national policies are ignored, Canada is difficult to comprehend due to stringent laws and limited exclusivity and India is among the least preferred ones, although it is an excellent outsourcing service provider for contract manufacturing and research.
Prufungsarbeit W. Regulatory strategies for life-cycle management of chemical defined cytostatic drugs with regard to the new pharmaceutical legislation – two case studies, http://www.dgra.de/studiengang/pdf master_rosenkranz_k.pdf (2005, accessed 6 July 2011).
People.arcada. New-product development and product life-cycle strategies, http://people.arcada.fi/∼eldons/Marketing%202011]/Marketing%202011]/Life%20cycle%20strategies%2014.ppt (2011, accessed 6 August 2011).
28.
KaitinKI. Deconstructing the drug development process: the new face of innovation. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut2010; 87(3): 356–361.
29.
King J. Can a drug live forever? http://65.17.196.124/pdf/live.pdf (2003, accessed 5 July 2011).
Furlanetto A and Mowatt G. Market exclusivity for innovative new drugs found to be constitutional by Federal Court, http://www.dimock.com/publications.php?article = 77 (2009, accessed 30 March 2012).
Official journal of the European communities. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2006_1901/reg_2006_1901_en.pdf (2006, accessed 30 March 2012).
Official journal of the European communities. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = OJ:L:2000:018:0001:0005:en:PDF (2000, 30 March 2012).
Ray T. India needs Orphan Drugs Act (ODA) to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/india-needs-orphan-drugs-act (2010, accessed 30 March 2012).
48.
Contents and term of patent; provisional rights, 35 USC 154.
49.
Patent term extension, 35 USC 155.
50.
Extension of patent term, 35 USC 156.
51.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 355(c)(3)(E)(ii).
52.
FDA/CDER. Guidance for industry: qualifying for pediatric exclusivity under section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/2414fnl.htm (1998, accessed 30 March 2011).
53.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Import or manufacture of new drug for clinical trials or marketing. Part – XA. Rule 122A. Application for permission to import new Drug.
Nortonrose. CETA trade negotiations 2011 – drug market exclusivity in the EU and Canada, http://www.nortonrose.com/files/ceta-trade-negotiations-2011–drug-market-exclusivity-in-the-eu-and-canada-pdf-109kb-57552 (2011, accessed 30 March 2012).
PincoRGBinzakBAPioneer and generic drugs: balance between product life cycle extensions and anticompetitive behavior. In: BerryIRMartinRP (eds). The pharmaceutical regulatory process, New York: Marcel Dekker, 2005, pp. 257–322.
63.
GoldbergLAFaridN. The FDA’s generic “final rule”. Modern Drug Discov2004; 7(1): 50–51.
64.
GloverGJ. The Influence of market exclusivity on drug availability and medical innovations. Am Assoc Pharmaceut Scientists J2007; 9(3): 312–316.
65.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 355a.
66.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)(I).
MooreJW. Pharmaceutical products in Europe: the supplementary protection certificate. Canadian Intellect Prop Rev1998; 14: 137–140.
76.
Wilken M. New developments in European pharmaceutical law and implications on the lifecycle management of medicinal products, http://home.arcor.de/janna-schweim/6-Wilken (2008, accessed 7 July 2011).
VoetMA. Drug product exclusivity. The generic challenge: understanding patents, FDA and pharmaceutical life-cycle management, Florida: Brown Walker Press, 2011, pp. 89–103.
79.
Pingle S. Indian pharma companies obtain 144 ANDA approvals from US FDA in 2011, http://pharmabis.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid = 66831&sid = 2 (2012, accessed 12 April 2012).
GangilJThungaGNagaichR. Do intellectual property rights and data exclusivity encourage innovation in the pharmaceutical world?Syst Rev Pharmacy2010; 1(2): 190–193.
