{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021645021645021644, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021645021645021645, 'mean_word_length': 5.292517006802721, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evidence of ‘Evergreening’ in Secondary Patenting of Blockbuster Drugs

Secondary patents associated with blockbuster drugs are granted for follow-on innovations relating to the active pharmaceutical ingredient (‘API’) of the drug. Our analysis of all secondary patents for 13 top-selling drugs in Australia shows that, while the majority of the follow-on innovations are made by entities other than the originator of the drug, the innovations with the highest private value are undertaken by the drug’s originator and concern a delivery mechanism or an alternative formulation for the API. Since that is the type of follow-on innovation most commonly undertaken by drug originators, and considered most likely to result in a de facto extension of marketplace monopoly over the drug, we see in these findings evidence that the originators of blockbuster drugs engage in secondary patenting that has an ‘evergreening’ effect.