Transl Clin Pharmacol.  2018 Jun;26(2):49-55. 10.12793/tcp.2018.26.2.49.

Data exclusivity through New Drug Reexamination in Korea: sibutramine hydrochloride (Reductil®) vs. sibutramine mesylate (Slimmer®) as an example

• Lee H

• KMID: 2413826
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.12793/tcp.2018.26.2.49

Abstract

The "˜equivalent-or-more-but-not-the-same-data' provision in the Regulation on the Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of New Drug in Korea has served as the de facto data exclusivity term for any drug identical to a product subject to new drug reexamination. The legal debate that occurred between Abbott Korea and Hanmi in association with the approval of their sibutramine products, i.e., Reductil® vs. Slimmer®, showed why data exclusivity plays an important role to protect intellectual property of the innovator drug when incrementally modified drugs had to rely on the safety and efficacy data of the innovator drug for approval. The regulatory science and legal issues regarding the case of Reductil® vs Slimmer® were discussed, and the importance of data exclusivity was emphasized as a useful tool to protect intellectual property besides patent.

Keyword

Data exclusivity; Intellectual property; New drug reexamination; Sibutramine

MeSH Terms

Intellectual Property
Korea*
Mesylates*
Mesylates

Reference

1. Korea Food and Drug Administration. Regulation on the Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of New Drug. 2003. Notification 2003-17.

2. Jeon HM. Issues were raised on the legitimacy of protecting an innovator drug for which the patent has expired. Daily Pharm . 2004. 11. 17.

3. US Congress. H.R. REP. NO. 98-857, pt. 1. 1984. Accessed 28 May 2018. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/98th-congress/house-report/857/1.

4. Mossinghoff GJ. Overview of the Hatch-Waxman Act and Its Impact on the Drug Development Process. Food Drug Law J. 1999; 54:187–194. PMID: 11758572.

5. US Congress. H.R.3605 - Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. 1984. Accessed 28 May 2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/3605.

6. Food and Drug Administration HHS. Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2016; 81:69580–69658. PMID: 27731961.

7. Food and Drug Administration, CDER. Guidance for Industry. Applications Covered by Section 505(b)(2). 10/1999. 1999. Accessed 28 May 2018. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm079345.pdf.

8. Pugatch MP. University of Haifa ICTSD-UNCTAD Dialogue on Ensuring Policy Options for Affordable Access to Essential Medicines, Intellectual property and pharmaceutical data exclusivity in the context of innovation and market access. 2004.

9. Gorlin JJ. The Importance of Data Exclusivity. In : PhRMA Asia Managers Conference and Seminar; October 28, 2004; Shanghai, China.

10. Korea Food and Drug Administration. Regulation of the Review on the Applications to Manufacture or Import Drug Products and Related Products. 2003. 5. 09. Notification 2003-38.

11. PFIZER INC., vs. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD.: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 03-1227, -1258. 2004. 2. 27.

12. Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 23.3.

13. Lee MW. Structure of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Constitution Treatises. 2000; 11:323–324.

14. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Voluntary withdrawal of sibutramine from the market recommended. 2010. 10. 22. Accessed 28 May 2018. http://mfds.go.kr/antidrug/index.do?nMenuCode=53&boardSeq=2367&mode=view.

15. Cheon SH. Antiobesity drugs withdrawn from the market lost approval. 2017. 8. 04. Accessed 28 May 2018. http://www.biospectator.com/view/news_view.php?varAtcId=3728.