The Bolar Exemption in Patents (Use in Pharmaceuticals)

Introduction of Bolar Exemption

• The pharmaceutical industry operates in a complex landscape where patent protection, regulatory approvals, and market access must be carefully navigated.
• The Bolar exemption plays a crucial role in this environment, allowing generic and biosimilar manufacturers to conduct pre-market regulatory testing without infringing on existing patents.
• This legal provision accelerates market entry for affordable alternatives, ensuring business continuity, competitive positioning, and broader patient access.
• However, its application varies globally, creating both opportunities and challenges for pharmaceutical companies.

History of Bolar Exemption:

• The Roche vs. Bolar Case: The Spark That Started It All

Background:

• In the early 1980s, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry faced a challenge: generic manufacturers had to wait until a patent expired before starting clinical trials and regulatory processes.
• This created an artificial delay in the entry of lower-cost alternatives, giving branded drug companies an extended monopoly beyond the intended patent period.
• In 1984, the case of Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co. brought this issue into the legal spotlight.

The Legal Dispute

• Roche Products, Inc. held a patent for the active ingredient diazepam, the key component in Valium, which was set to expire soon.
• Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., a generic drug manufacturer, began conducting pre-market research and testing on diazepam before the patent expired, intending to submit the data to the FDA for approval of its generic version.
• Roche sued Bolar, claiming that any use of a patented drug—even for regulatory approval—constituted patent infringement.

Court Ruling

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in favor of Roche, stating that Bolar’s use of the patented drug for research was an act of patent infringement, as the U.S. patent law at the time did not include an exemption for regulatory testing.
• This decision created a major roadblock for the generic drug industry, as companies would now have to wait until a patent expired before beginning necessary research—leading to years of unnecessary delays before generics could reach the market.
• The Birth of the Bolar Exemption: The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984
  • In response to the Roche v. Bolar ruling, the U.S. Congress recognized the need for a legal framework that balanced innovation incentives with timely generic competition.
  • This led to the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act (The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act) of 1984, which introduced the Bolar exemption under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1).

Understanding the Bolar Exemption in Patent Law

• The Bolar exemption (also known as the regulatory review exemption) permits the use of patented drugs for research and regulatory submissions before the patent expires.
• This provision ensures that as soon as a patent expires, a generic or biosimilar version can be launched without further delays.

Legal Evolution and Global Adoption

• The exemption originated in the United States through the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, codified under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1).
• It was introduced after Roche sued Bolar Pharmaceuticals for testing a generic equivalent of Valium before the patent expiry.
• The case highlighted the need for an exemption allowing generics to undergo regulatory approvals without waiting for patent expiration, leading to the creation of this provision.

Today, the Bolar exemption exists in multiple jurisdictions with varying interpretations:

• United States – Applies broadly to research related to FDA approval.
• European Union – Directive 2001/83/EC allows early research and regulatory submission.
• India – Section 107A of the Indian Patents Act provides an equivalent exemption.
• Canada, Japan, and Australia – Have similar legal frameworks supporting pre-patent expiry research.

Understanding jurisdiction-specific nuances is critical for pharmaceutical companies seeking to expand into new markets.

Strategic Benefits of the Bolar Exemption for Pharma Companies

1. Accelerated Market Entry for Generics and Biosimilars

• Without the Bolar exemption, generic and biosimilar manufacturers would have to wait until patent expiration before conducting clinical trials, bioequivalence studies, and regulatory submissions—delaying market entry by years.
• The exemption allows companies to prepare in advance, ensuring that a generic or biosimilar is available immediately post-patent expiry, minimizing the first-mover disadvantage.

2. Cost Optimization in Drug Development

• Pharmaceutical R&D is highly capital-intensive. The ability to initiate studies before a patent expires reduces the risk of unnecessary delays and optimizes resource allocation.
• Regulatory processes, which often take years, can be initiated in parallel, leading to more predictable investment cycles for generic and biosimilar manufacturers.

3. Competitive Positioning in the Pharma Landscape

• With increasing competition in the off-patent drug market, timing is everything. The Bolar exemption ensures that companies can gain early regulatory approval, enter the market as soon as legally possible, and capture significant market share before competitors.
• For biosimilar players, this is particularly crucial, as delayed entry could result in losing out to other manufacturers with faster regulatory strategies.

4. Global Expansion and Portfolio Diversification

• Given the variation in Bolar provisions across jurisdictions, pharma companies can leverage region-specific exemptions to create multi-market launch strategies. Companies targeting the EU, India, and Japan, for instance, can plan parallel regulatory filings for a coordinated global launch post-patent expiry.

Example of Bolar Examption in Pharmaceuticals:

Example of the Bolar Exemption in Action: Generic Version of LIPITOR (Atorvastatin)

• One of the most well-known applications of the Bolar exemption involved the development of a generic version of Lipitor (Atorvastatin), a blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drug originally developed by Pfizer.
• Background:
  • Lipitor was one of the world’s best-selling drugs, generating over $125 billion in revenue during its patent exclusivity.
  • Pfizer’s primary patent on atorvastatin was set to expire in 2011 in the U.S. and other markets.
  • Several generic manufacturers, including Ranbaxy Laboratories (now part of Sun Pharma), Teva, and Mylan, were preparing to launch generic versions as soon as the patent expired.
• Use of the Bolar Exemption:
• Even before Pfizer’s patent expired, companies like Ranbaxy started conducting bioequivalence studies and regulatory submissions for FDA and EMA approval.
• Ranbaxy used the Bolar exemption to legally develop and test its generic atorvastatin while the patent was still in force, ensuring that it could launch the product immediately after expiration.
• By filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, Ranbaxy positioned itself to secure 180-day market exclusivity as the first generic filer under the Paragraph IV challenge process.
• Outcome:
  • The first generic version of Lipitor was launched in the U.S. on November 30, 2011, on the very day Pfizer’s patent expired.
  • As a result, atorvastatin prices dropped by nearly 80% within months, saving patients and healthcare systems billions of dollars.
  • This case demonstrated how the Bolar exemption accelerates access to affordable medicines, benefiting both the pharmaceutical industry and public health.

Read More:

Patent