Policy Concentrates
Canada boosts protection for patent holders Supreme Court ruling favors brand-name-drug makers patents granted in Canada go to The Supreme Court of Canforeigners.” ada has strengthened patent The high court overturned protection and intellectual lower court rulings that backed property rights for brandCanadian generic drug maker name-drug makers. It has also Apotex’s claims that U.K.-based likely removed a Canadian AstraZeneca’s patent on Nexbargaining chip in the upcomium, its brand-name esomeing renegotiation of the North prazole, was invalid. A highly American Free Trade Agreesuccessful drug for AstraZeneca, ment with Mexico and the U.S. it is used to treat heartburn by The top court’s June 30 reducing production of gastric ruling overturns what’s acid. The patent on the drug has known in legal circles since expired. as the promise docThe court’s decision is good trine. This allowed news for U.S.-based, multinainvalidation of a CaAstraZeneca challenged tional pharmaceutical companadian drug patent Canada’s invalidation of nies, which had lobbied for the if a court found the the company’s patent for pharmaceutical didn’t the heartburn drug Nexium. U.S. to challenge the doctrine as part of the NAFTA talks. live up to every promCanadian negotiators might have comise a company made in the patent applicapromised on the doctrine during trade tion about the effects of the drug. Canada used this legal doctrine to invali- talks, Gold says, “but probably not have gone as far as the Supreme Court.” date 26 patents on 22 medicines during the AstraZeneca says the ruling “signals past decade, says U.S.-based Pharmaceutito global investors that Canada is a good cal Research & Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name-drug makers. place to invest with a predictable and stable market, aligned to other major trading “This ruling means Canada got rid partners.” of a standard that kept out low-quality Apotex says it’s disappointed in the patents,” says Richard Gold, a law prodecision. A spokesperson for the Canadifessor and intellectual property expert at an Generic Pharmaceutical Association McGill University. He’s a member of the says it is reviewing the implications of Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, the case.—SHARON OOSTHOEK, special which intervened in the case. “The ruling is good for patent holders —and 87% of to C&EN
BY THE NUMBERS
55,006 Number of research doctoral degrees awarded in the U.S. in 2015, the highest number ever reported, according to a survey from the National Science Foundation.
18
C&EN | CEN.ACS.ORG | JULY 10, 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Court blocks EPA from delaying methane leak rules A federal appeals court has nixed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to delay implementation of regulations to reduce methane leaks from oil and natural gas drilling and production. Those Obama Administration regulations were years in preparation and apply only to new and modified oil and gas facilities. When they went into effect in August 2016, they were the first-ever federal regulations to reduce methane from this sector. They would capture some 460,000 metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, by 2025, EPA said last year. They do not apply to existing facilities, which number in the hundreds of thousands. The Trump Administration in March called for a reexamination of these and other energy-related regulations. In April, after complaints from oil and gas producers, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt granted a 90-day delay to reconsider specific provisions of the methane rules. In June, Pruitt extended the delay for two years while EPA reconsiders the regulations in their entirety. The court, agreeing with environmental groups that challenged EPA’s move, voided the delay on July 3, calling it “arbitrary, capricious, [and] in excess of statutory … authority.” The administrative record makes clear that EPA provided ample opportunities for the public to comment while the agency crafted the regulations, the court found. Putting them on hold during reconsideration is unnecessary, it said. The court stressed that nothing in its opinion limits EPA’s authority to reconsider the rules and proceed with formal development of new methane leak regulations.—JEFF
JOHNSON, special to C&EN
CR E D I T: S HU T TE RSTO C K
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
