{"id":24217,"date":"2024-10-03T10:28:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-03T14:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=24217"},"modified":"2026-02-23T09:09:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-23T14:09:36","slug":"the-top-10-longest-running-drug-patents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-top-10-longest-running-drug-patents\/","title":{"rendered":"The Top 10 Longest-Running Drug Patents"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A Ranked Investigation Into the Drug Industry’s Most Enduring IP Fortresses \u2014 and What They Cost You<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Pharmaceutical patents are supposed to last 20 years. That’s the deal: the government grants a temporary monopoly, the company recoups its R&D investment, and then generic manufacturers flood the market with cheap copies. Prices drop. Patients benefit. Innovation gets funded again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Except that isn’t how it works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The drugs profiled in this article held market exclusivity not for 20 years, but for 25, 30, and in some cases approaching 40 years \u2014 or are structurally positioned to do so. They accomplished this not through scientific breakthroughs, but through legal engineering so sophisticated it has its own name: evergreening. Each new patent filing on a reformulation, a delivery mechanism, a metabolite, or a new indication resets the clock. Each patent challenge from a generic maker triggers a 30-month automatic stay under the Hatch-Waxman Act, buying more time. Each authorized generic deal with a would-be competitor keeps prices elevated while creating the appearance of competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding how these patents accumulated their extraordinary longevity is not an academic exercise. It determines which drugs remain expensive, which pipeline deals carry hidden risk, and where the next wave of biosimilar and generic disruption will land. Investors, payers, and policy analysts who map patent expiration landscapes \u2014 using tools like DrugPatentWatch to track filing dates, challenge outcomes, and expiration timelines \u2014 consistently outperform those who rely on company-issued projections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article ranks the ten longest-running drug patent portfolios in pharmaceutical history, examines the legal and scientific strategies that extended them, and draws out the lessons each case teaches about the intersection of IP law and drug pricing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why Patent Longevity Is the Wrong Metric \u2014 and Why You Should Track It Anyway<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Before the rankings, a clarification: “longest-running patent” is not a single, clean number. A drug launched in 1980 might have an initial composition-of-matter patent expiring in 2000, but the manufacturer may have filed formulation patents in 1995, method-of-use patents in 1998, and pediatric exclusivity extensions in 2001. Add Orange Book listings, Paragraph IV certifications, and pay-for-delay settlements, and the “real” expiration becomes a probability distribution rather than a date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patent analysts at firms covering pharmaceutical IP have shifted toward tracking “effective exclusivity periods” \u2014 the length of time from a drug’s first commercial sale to the date when the first generic or biosimilar achieves meaningful market penetration, typically defined as 20 percent market share by volume. By that definition, the drugs on this list all exceeded 20 years of effective exclusivity. Several are still running.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commercial consequences are enormous. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association<\/em> found that the 12 drugs generating the most Medicare revenue collectively had effective exclusivity periods averaging 14 years longer than their original patent terms. That gap \u2014 14 years of extra monopoly pricing \u2014 transfers hundreds of billions of dollars per drug from payers and patients to shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tracking that gap is where the analytical value lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

How Drug Patents Actually Work<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents with a 20-year term from the filing date. Because pharmaceutical companies often file patents during early-stage research, years before a drug reaches patients, the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 created Patent Term Extensions (PTEs) to compensate for regulatory review time. These extensions can add up to five years to a patent’s term, extending total protection to a practical maximum of 14 years from approval for a composition-of-matter patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That 14-year ceiling applies to a single patent. The Orange Book \u2014 the FDA’s official registry of approved drugs and their associated patents \u2014 can list dozens of patents for a single drug, each with a different expiration date. Generic manufacturers attempting to enter the market must certify to each Orange Book patent. If they file a Paragraph IV certification arguing a patent is invalid or would not be infringed, the brand manufacturer has 45 days to file an infringement suit. That suit automatically delays FDA approval of the generic by 30 months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That 30-month stay is the single most powerful tool in the patent extension arsenal. A manufacturer with 12 Orange Book patents can theoretically trigger 12 sequential 30-month stays against a single generic challenger. In practice, courts have curtailed the most egregious abuses, but the structural incentive to pile patents into the Orange Book remains intact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biologics operate under a separate framework. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2009 grants 12 years of data exclusivity for a reference biologic \u2014 independent of patents \u2014 and establishes a complex patent exchange process known colloquially as the “patent dance.” This framework effectively adds a floor to biologic exclusivity that has no equivalent in small-molecule drug law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pediatric exclusivity adds another six months on top of any existing patent or exclusivity. This sounds modest, but for a drug generating $10 billion per year, six months is worth $5 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Evergreening Playbook<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Pharmaceutical companies use a predictable toolkit to extend patent life. Knowing the moves in advance allows investors and analysts to model realistic exclusivity windows rather than accepting the dates companies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core strategies, in descending order of legal durability, are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Composition-of-matter patents<\/strong> cover the active ingredient itself. These are the strongest patents and the hardest to invalidate. Once a composition-of-matter patent expires, however, no subsequent patent can prevent generic manufacturers from selling the original molecule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Formulation patents<\/strong> cover how the drug is delivered \u2014 extended-release coatings, particular salt forms, specific dosage strengths. These are more vulnerable to challenge but have successfully delayed generic entry by years in dozens of cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Method-of-use patents<\/strong> cover how the drug is prescribed. A company might hold method-of-use patents for treating a new indication, or for dosing the drug in a particular population. Generics can typically design around these through “carve-out” labeling that excludes the patented indication, but Orange Book listing still triggers 30-month stays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metabolite patents<\/strong> cover the active metabolite that the body produces when it processes the original drug. This strategy moved Prilosec to Nexium and kept AstraZeneca’s heartburn franchise alive for an additional decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pediatric exclusivity<\/strong> grants six months of added exclusivity in exchange for conducting clinical trials in children, whether or not the drug is ever approved for pediatric use. The FDA’s financial incentive structure makes this a near-universal play for drugs near patent expiration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Authorized generics<\/strong> involve the brand manufacturer licensing a generic version to a subsidiary or deal partner, allowing them to split the exclusivity window with the first generic filer. This suppresses generic price competition without technically blocking market entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Methodology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The rankings below are based on effective exclusivity period, measured from the date of first U.S. commercial sale to the date when the first independently marketed generic or biosimilar reached 20 percent market share by volume. Where that threshold has not yet been crossed, the ranking uses projected effective exclusivity based on the latest Orange Book filings and outstanding litigation, sourced in part from DrugPatentWatch’s patent expiration database.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drugs are ranked by this effective exclusivity period, not by the duration of any single patent. Revenue generation, geographic scope, and the complexity of the patent portfolio factored into tie-breaking. Drugs that were withdrawn from the market for safety reasons are excluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Rankings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

#10 \u2014 Enbrel (Etanercept): Amgen and Pfizer’s 26-Year Partnership in Delay<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Enbrel launched in the United States in 1998 for rheumatoid arthritis. Its core composition-of-matter patents were expected to expire around 2012. They did. But biosimilar entry into the U.S. market did not follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason was a patent thicket that Amgen constructed \u2014 and that Pfizer inherited through its 2009 co-promotion agreement \u2014 covering manufacturing processes, formulations, and methods of use. By the time Sandoz filed a biosimilar application in 2015, Amgen had 40 patents listed in the FDA’s Purple Book equivalent. Sandoz’s biosimilar, Erelzi, received FDA approval in 2016 but did not launch commercially until 2019, more than three years later, while litigation resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The effective exclusivity period for Enbrel in the United States runs from 1998 to approximately 2029, when the last Amgen manufacturing patents are projected to expire. That is 31 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Europe, the calculation is different. Biosimilars of etanercept launched in the EU as early as 2016 because European patent law does not include the BPCIA’s 12-year data exclusivity floor, and Amgen’s European patents faced successful challenges. This transatlantic divergence \u2014 the same molecule enjoying competitive markets in Europe but a near-monopoly in the United States for an additional decade \u2014 illustrates how patent strategy is geographically contingent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enbrel’s peak annual U.S. revenue was $5.4 billion in 2015. Even with biosimilar entry, net U.S. revenues remain above $2 billion annually because of formulary positioning, patient assistance programs that discourage switching, and the inertia of physician prescribing habits. Pfizer has consistently argued that biosimilar uptake in biologics is structurally lower than generic uptake in small molecules, and the data supports them. That inertia is itself an extension of commercial exclusivity, even if it does not appear in any patent filing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Enbrel case teaches a specific lesson about biosimilar market dynamics: legal exclusivity and commercial exclusivity are not the same thing, and the gap between them benefits incumbent manufacturers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#9 \u2014 Zantac (Ranitidine): The 30-Year Franchise That Ended in Carcinogen Controversy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ranitidine \u2014 sold by Glaxo as Zantac \u2014 launched in the United States in 1983 and became the world’s first drug to generate $1 billion in annual sales. Its original composition-of-matter patent expired in 1997, and generic ranitidine entered the market as expected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the story of ranitidine’s longevity is not about patent evergreening. It is about brand management, formulation patents, and the creation of over-the-counter variants that kept the Zantac brand commercially relevant until 2020 \u2014 not because of IP protection, but because of consumer recognition and formulary positioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The instructive IP episode in ranitidine’s history was GSK’s attempt to reformulate ranitidine bismuth citrate as a treatment for H. pylori<\/em> infection, using patents on the combination therapy to extend exclusivity. This was ultimately unsuccessful, but it established a template that other manufacturers would use more effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ranitidine’s story ended abruptly in April 2020 when the FDA requested market withdrawal after NDMA \u2014 a probable human carcinogen \u2014 was found to be an inherent degradation product of the ranitidine molecule itself, not a manufacturing contamination. The effective commercial period for branded and generic ranitidine combined spans 37 years, making it one of the longest-running drug franchises in history by commercial continuity even if not by patent protection alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The litigation fallout from the NDMA contamination has cost Sanofi, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer \u2014 all of whom sold ranitidine-containing products at various times \u2014 hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements. The patent story and the safety story are impossible to untangle: the decades of market presence that ranitidine accumulated meant that tens of millions of patients had long-term exposure when the contamination risk became apparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#8 \u2014 Gleevec (Imatinib): Novartis and the Patent That Sparked a Global Policy Debate<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gleevec launched in 2001 and was legitimately one of the most important cancer drugs ever developed. Imatinib was the first targeted kinase inhibitor approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia and represented a genuine therapeutic revolution. None of the following analysis diminishes that scientific achievement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Novartis’s IP strategy around imatinib, however, represents one of the most studied \u2014 and most legally challenged \u2014 cases of pharmaceutical patent extension in history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The base imatinib patent was filed in 1993 and covered the free base form of the molecule. Novartis later developed imatinib mesylate, a salt form of imatinib that improved bioavailability, and filed a new patent on this form in 1997. When India’s patent office refused to grant the mesylate patent under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act \u2014 a provision specifically designed to prevent evergreening of known substances through minor modifications \u2014 Novartis challenged the rejection all the way to the Indian Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2013, the Supreme Court of India upheld the patent office rejection. The ruling became a reference point for developing nations arguing that TRIPS-compliant patent law does not require countries to grant patents on incremental modifications of known molecules unless the modification provides enhanced therapeutic efficacy. At least 14 countries subsequently cited the Indian ruling in their own patent policy deliberations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the United States, the picture was different. Novartis filed a battery of secondary patents covering the mesylate form, specific polymorphs, formulations, and methods of use. Generic manufacturers challenged these patents through Paragraph IV certifications. Sun Pharma and others eventually settled with Novartis under agreements that allowed generic entry in January 2016 \u2014 the same date Novartis set as the terminal point of its U.S. Gleevec exclusivity \u2014 effectively eliminating the benefit of the generic challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The effective U.S. exclusivity period for Gleevec ran from 2001 to 2016: 15 years. That would not make this list on its own. What extends the effective commercial story is Tasigna (nilotinib), which Novartis launched in 2007 as a second-generation successor. Tasigna carries patents extending to 2030 and commands premium pricing. Novartis’s promotional effort shifted prescriptions from imatinib toward nilotinib in the years before imatinib genericized, effectively migrating its revenue base to a newer, longer-lived IP position. The combined imatinib-nilotinib franchise has maintained Novartis’s CML revenues above $1.5 billion annually for more than two decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That revenue migration strategy \u2014 abandoning an aging patent to a successor molecule before generics arrive \u2014 is perhaps the most sophisticated form of product lifecycle management in the industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#7 \u2014 Prozac (Fluoxetine): The Authorized Generic That Changed the Industry<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Eli Lilly launched fluoxetine \u2014 Prozac \u2014 in 1988. The drug’s composition-of-matter patent was filed in 1974 and expired in 2001 after a PTE. Facing imminent generic competition, Lilly introduced an authorized generic through Barr Pharmaceuticals six months before the exclusivity period ended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authorized generic maneuver was legally permitted under a 1999 district court ruling that found nothing in the Hatch-Waxman Act prevented brand manufacturers from licensing their own drugs to generic distributors. Lilly’s move allowed Barr to capture a significant portion of the generic market during the 180-day exclusivity window that Paragraph IV first filers receive, effectively splitting the financial upside with Lilly rather than allowing Barr to keep it all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FDA later studied the impact of authorized generics on first-filer exclusivity and found they consistently reduced generic revenues during the exclusivity window by 40 to 52 percent. This reduction diminished the financial incentive for generic companies to invest in Paragraph IV challenges \u2014 which is expensive patent litigation \u2014 in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Prozac case did not involve a dramatically long patent lifespan. Lilly’s effective U.S. exclusivity for Prozac ran from 1988 to 2001: 13 years, which was close to the statutory maximum. What earns Prozac a place on this list is Lilly’s secondary move: Sarafem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1999, Lilly won FDA approval of fluoxetine under the brand name Sarafem for Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD), a newly codified clinical indication. The method-of-use patent covering PMDD treatment extended to 2007. Because Sarafem was fluoxetine \u2014 chemically identical to Prozac \u2014 generic fluoxetine manufacturers could carve out the PMDD indication from their labeling and sell it for all other indications. But physicians prescribing Sarafem specifically for PMDD could still trigger infringement if they substituted a Prozac generic without checking the labeling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sarafem strategy bought Lilly six additional years of protected revenue from a single clinical trial, at a time when fluoxetine was already fully genericized for depression. The total commercial franchise \u2014 counting both Prozac and Sarafem \u2014 ran from 1988 to approximately 2007: 19 years of meaningful brand revenue from a drug whose core patent had expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prozac pioneered the psychiatric drug market. Sarafem showed how to extend a genericized drug’s commercial life through indication-specific method patents. Both moves were imitated extensively in the decade that followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#6 \u2014 OxyContin (Extended-Release Oxycodone): The Patent Portfolio Behind a Public Health Crisis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This entry is uncomfortable, and it should be. The patent history of OxyContin is inseparable from its public health history. Examining one without the other produces an incomplete analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purdue Pharma received FDA approval for OxyContin \u2014 extended-release oxycodone \u2014 in 1995. The drug was not a new molecule. Oxycodone had existed since 1917 and was freely available in generic form. What Purdue patented was the extended-release delivery mechanism: a formulation that released oxycodone over 12 hours, theoretically reducing the abuse potential of shorter-acting formulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original OxyContin formulation patent was set to expire in 2013. In 2010, Purdue reformulated OxyContin with abuse-deterrent properties that made the tablets harder to crush and dissolve for injection or inhalation. Purdue patented the reformulation and withdrew the original formulation from the market in 2013, citing abuse concerns. The FDA accepted Purdue’s citizen petition arguing that generic manufacturers should have to prove their versions were abuse-deterrent equivalents of the new formulation \u2014 not the original.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This created a patent cliff that didn’t happen. Generic extended-release oxycodone without abuse-deterrent properties received FDA approval, but Purdue’s Orange Book listings for the abuse-deterrent formulation had no approved generic equivalents. The FDA added a note to the Orange Book that the original OxyContin had been voluntarily withdrawn for safety reasons, which under Hatch-Waxman prevented generic manufacturers from relying on the original approval to prove bioequivalence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reformulation strategy extended effective exclusivity on OxyContin’s branded franchise from 2013 \u2014 when the original patent expired \u2014 to 2025, when the last abuse-deterrent formulation patents are projected to expire. That is 10 additional years purchased through reformulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purdue’s bankruptcy in 2019 and the Sackler family settlements complicate the commercial history significantly. But from a pure patent strategy standpoint, OxyContin represents one of the clearest examples of reformulation-as-extension: a manufacturer used a safety-justified reformulation to simultaneously improve its legal and reputational position while extending its IP estate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opioid litigation has produced 30 million pages of internal documents. Those documents show that Purdue’s internal communications distinguished between the company’s public safety rationale for reformulation and the internal commercial rationale. That distinction is the central lesson here: patent strategy and public statements about patent strategy are not the same document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#5 \u2014 Lyrica (Pregabalin): Pfizer’s 17-Year Monopoly on Nerve Pain<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer launched Lyrica (pregabalin) in 2004 for epilepsy and was subsequently approved for fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, and generalized anxiety disorder. By peak revenues in 2018, Lyrica generated $5.1 billion annually \u2014 an extraordinary number for a drug that is, pharmacologically, a close relative of gabapentin, which had been generic since 2004.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key to Lyrica’s longevity was a method-of-use patent covering the treatment of pain, which did not expire until 2018. Pfizer aggressively enforced this patent against would-be generic manufacturers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2018, a UK Court of Appeal ruling complicated Pfizer’s enforcement. The case, Warner-Lambert v. Actavis<\/em>, found that while Pfizer’s pain indication patent was valid, generic manufacturers who “skinny-labeled” their pregabalin products \u2014 excluding the pain indication \u2014 could not be held liable for infringement simply because some physicians prescribed their products off-label for pain. This ruling was significant: it limited the practical enforceability of method-of-use patents when generics can carve out the indication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the United States, Lyrica’s effective exclusivity ran until 2019, when an agreement with generic manufacturers allowed them to enter the market. Lyrica generated over $60 billion in cumulative U.S. revenues between 2004 and 2019 \u2014 15 years of branded revenues from a molecule whose chemistry had been established before Pfizer’s key patents were even filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pregabalin saga contains a specific lesson for anyone modeling generic entry timelines: method-of-use patents are more fragile than composition-of-matter patents, but they can still delay entry by years because of the 30-month stay mechanism. Even a patent that a court will eventually invalidate buys time in the interim. Filing a Paragraph IV certification the day a drug’s primary patents expire is never the end of the story; the secondary patents in the Orange Book determine how much time elapses before actual market entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#4 \u2014 Nexium (Esomeprazole): The Purple Pill’s Purple Reign<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Few cases in pharmaceutical patent history are as cleanly instructive as Prilosec-to-Nexium. It is taught in business schools, litigated in federal courts, and cited in Congressional testimony. It is also genuinely clever, which is not the same as genuinely ethical, and the distinction matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prilosec (omeprazole) launched in the United States in 1989 and became AstraZeneca’s best-selling drug. Its primary patents were set to expire in 2001. Facing this cliff, AstraZeneca’s chemists examined omeprazole’s molecular structure. Omeprazole is a racemic mixture \u2014 it contains two mirror-image versions of the same molecule, the S-enantiomer and the R-enantiomer. AstraZeneca isolated the S-enantiomer, esomeprazole, and filed new patents on it, launched it as Nexium in 2001, and began an aggressive marketing campaign to transition patients and physicians from the old purple pill to the new purple pill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The clinical trial data supporting Nexium showed modest but measurable superiority over omeprazole in certain outcomes \u2014 not dramatic, but enough to justify a separate approval and a separate patent estate. Critics argued then, and still argue, that the superiority could have been achieved simply by increasing the omeprazole dose. AstraZeneca argued it was commercializing a genuinely superior molecule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is not disputed is the financial outcome. Nexium launched at a significant price premium over Prilosec. When generic omeprazole entered the market at a fraction of Prilosec’s price, Nexium had already captured the most loyal prescribers. The brand Nexium commanded prices 20 to 30 times higher than generic omeprazole for treating the same condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AstraZeneca filed dozens of patents covering Nexium’s formulations, manufacturing processes, and salt forms. Generic manufacturers filed Paragraph IV certifications and faced years of resulting litigation. The first generic esomeprazole did not reach the U.S. market until 2015 \u2014 14 years after Nexium launched and 26 years after Prilosec launched. The combined omeprazole\/esomeprazole franchise ran for 26 years of meaningful brand revenue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Total Nexium revenue across its branded commercial life: approximately $72 billion globally. The patent cost of that revenue, in the form of higher prices paid by patients and payers, has been estimated by academic researchers at roughly $9 billion in the United States alone during the period when generic omeprazole was available and Nexium was not yet genericized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The enantiomer strategy Nexium pioneered has since been replicated with Celexa\/Lexapro, Claritin\/Clarinex, and several other franchise transitions. Calling it “evergreening” understates how precisely it exploits the gap between patent law’s requirements and the clinical significance threshold that doctors and patients actually apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#3 \u2014 Lipitor (Atorvastatin): The World’s Best-Selling Drug and Its Decade-Long Patent Defense<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Lipitor (atorvastatin) was the world’s best-selling drug for 14 consecutive years. Between its 1997 U.S. launch and the expiration of its final patents in 2011, Lipitor generated over $130 billion in global revenues \u2014 more than any other drug in pharmaceutical history, adjusted or unadjusted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer did not discover atorvastatin. Warner-Lambert did, filing the original compound patent in 1986. Pfizer co-promoted Lipitor beginning in 1997 and then acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 in a $90 billion hostile takeover driven substantially by Lipitor’s commercial potential. The acquisition price was justified by the drug’s remaining patent life and the strategic question of whether that life could be extended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary atorvastatin composition-of-matter patent expired in 2010. Before that date, Pfizer faced a gauntlet of Paragraph IV challenges from generic manufacturers. Ranbaxy \u2014 which later became Pfizer’s authorized generic partner \u2014 filed the first Paragraph IV certification in 2003. The resulting litigation lasted seven years, with Ranbaxy ultimately prevailing on some claims and Pfizer prevailing on others. A settlement in 2008 allowed Ranbaxy to launch authorized generic atorvastatin in November 2011, when Pfizer’s key patent finally expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For six months after November 2011, Ranbaxy had 180-day first-filer exclusivity. During this period, Pfizer launched its own authorized generic through Greenstone LLC \u2014 a subsidiary \u2014 at the same time Ranbaxy launched. The result was that two “generic” atorvastatins entered the market simultaneously, both at prices well below branded Lipitor but above what a fully competitive generic market would produce. Fully competitive generics from other manufacturers entered only after Ranbaxy’s 180-day exclusivity ended in May 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer’s strategy effectively extracted an additional six months of above-market pricing by using its authorized generic to cannibalize Ranbaxy’s first-filer windfall. The move cost Pfizer very little \u2014 Greenstone already existed \u2014 and preserved hundreds of millions in revenue during the transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes Lipitor a case of exceptional longevity is the combination of its scale and its patent defense. Pfizer spent hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation costs defending Lipitor’s patent estate over a seven-year period, a rational investment given that each additional year of exclusivity at Lipitor’s sales volume was worth $4 to $5 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lipitor case also illustrates the relationship between scale and IP strategy: the larger a drug’s revenues, the greater the per-dollar return on patent litigation investment. This creates a structural bias toward aggressive patent defense for blockbusters that smaller-selling drugs never experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#2 \u2014 Humira (Adalimumab): The Patent Thicket as Business Strategy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Humira is the best-documented case of pharmaceutical patent accumulation in history. AbbVie built a patent wall around adalimumab that, as of 2023, contained more than 311 patents in the United States alone, covering compositions, formulations, dosing regimens, delivery devices, methods of treatment, and manufacturing processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The drug was approved by the FDA in 2002. The core composition-of-matter patent expired in 2016. Under normal patent law operation, biosimilars should have begun entering the U.S. market in 2016 or 2017. They did not. The first adalimumab biosimilar began commercial sales in the United States in January 2023 \u2014 seven years after the primary patent expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AbbVie’s mechanism of delay was not a single strategy but a coordinated set of them. The company filed patents continuously from the drug’s early clinical development through the late 2010s, ensuring that no matter which claim a biosimilar manufacturer attacked, others remained. By the time Amgen, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and others had their adalimumab biosimilars approved \u2014 between 2016 and 2021 \u2014 each faced a patent landscape in which launching without a license meant facing infringement suits on potentially hundreds of claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AbbVie’s resolution of this uncertainty was to enter into licensing deals with every major biosimilar manufacturer. These deals allowed biosimilar entry in Europe beginning in 2018 \u2014 where AbbVie’s patent position was weaker because European patent law examines inventive step more strictly \u2014 while U.S. entry was contractually deferred to January 2023. The settlement terms are confidential, but analysts estimated they included royalty payments that kept AbbVie’s effective economics above what a fully competitive biosimilar market would have produced. <blockquote> “AbbVie’s patent strategy on Humira is the most successful use of a patent thicket in the history of the pharmaceutical industry. The 311 U.S. patents don’t represent 311 inventions \u2014 they represent one molecule protected by 311 legal claims.” \u2014 Robin Feldman, Professor of Law, UC College of the Law San Francisco, quoted in *STAT News*, 2023. <\/blockquote><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The financial consequences of this seven-year delay are calculable. Humira generated approximately $21 billion in global revenues in 2022, its last year of U.S. exclusivity. Even assuming biosimilar pricing would have reduced those revenues by 40 percent \u2014 a conservative assumption given that biosimilar discounts in the U.S. have ranged from 5 to 80 percent depending on the therapeutic category \u2014 AbbVie retained approximately $60 billion in revenue over the 2016-2023 period that would not have been available in a competitive market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That $60 billion is roughly the cost of 14 major Phase III clinical trials. It is the size of Merck’s entire annual revenue. It is, from AbbVie’s perspective, the financial return on an IP strategy that the company’s lawyers and patent agents \u2014 not its scientists \u2014 engineered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Humira case also illustrates the geographic arbitrage that patent thickets enable. European patients have had access to adalimumab biosimilars since 2018, at prices 30 to 80 percent below Humira. U.S. patients paid monopoly prices for five additional years. This divergence \u2014 caused purely by IP strategy, not by clinical or scientific factors \u2014 is the clearest demonstration that patent protection in pharmaceuticals functions as a tax on geography.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s database contains the complete filing and expiration dates for all 311 U.S. Humira patents, organized by patent type and challenge status. Analysts using that data in 2019 could have predicted with reasonable confidence that U.S. biosimilar entry would not occur before 2023, regardless of what the primary patent’s 2016 expiration suggested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

#1 \u2014 Lantus (Insulin Glargine): A Century-Old Hormone and a 25-Year Fortress<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Insulin should not be patentable in any form that delays affordable access. The hormone was discovered at the University of Toronto in 1921 and the discoverers insisted it be sold cheaply to benefit humanity. For decades, it was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanofi’s insulin glargine \u2014 Lantus \u2014 launched in the United States in 2000. Lantus was genuinely innovative: a long-acting insulin analog engineered to provide 24-hour basal coverage with less hypoglycemic risk than NPH insulin. It earned its approval. Its subsequent patent strategy is a separate matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanofi filed the original glargine composition-of-matter patent in 1988, covering the amino acid sequence modification that makes glargine’s pharmacokinetics distinct. This patent expired in 2014. At that point, Lantus was generating approximately $7.5 billion annually in global revenues and had become the world’s best-selling insulin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What followed over the next decade is the most complex patent defense exercise in the insulin market’s history. Sanofi’s Orange Book listings for Lantus included formulation patents, device patents \u2014 covering the SoloStar prefilled pen injector \u2014 manufacturing process patents, and method-of-use patents. Biocon and Mylan, working together under the brand name Basaglar for their biosimilar glargine, filed a biosimilar application in 2014 and faced more than three years of patent litigation before reaching a settlement in 2015 that allowed Basaglar to launch in December 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two additional years of delay beyond the 2014 primary patent expiration, at $7.5 billion per year: $15 billion in retained revenues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanofi simultaneously launched Toujeo \u2014 a higher-concentration glargine formulation (300 units\/mL versus Lantus’s 100 units\/mL) \u2014 in 2015, carrying a new patent estate extending to 2030. Toujeo was promoted as offering more stable glycemic control, with clinical data supporting modest advantages in some patient populations. Sanofi’s commercial teams began transitioning physicians to Toujeo before Basaglar launched, using the same playbook AstraZeneca had pioneered with Nexium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 2020, three biosimilar insulins were available in the United States: Basaglar, Semglee (Viatris\/Biocon), and Rezvoglar (Eli Lilly). Semglee received designation as the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin in 2021, meaning pharmacists can substitute it without prescriber authorization. Despite this availability, Lantus’s market share remained substantial for years because of formulary positioning \u2014 PBMs and insurers often preferred branded Lantus over biosimilars due to rebate structures that made the branded product cheaper for the payer, if not for the patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That formulary dynamic represents an extension of commercial exclusivity that operates entirely outside patent law. Sanofi pays rebates to PBMs that keep Lantus on formulary. The PBMs pass some of those rebates to plan sponsors. The plan sponsors have lower premiums. Patients with high deductibles pay full retail price for Lantus while the system around them is constructed to prefer it. The effective out-of-pocket cost for some patients is higher under the rebate-preferred branded Lantus than it would be under an interchangeable biosimilar with no rebate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanofi announced in 2023 a voluntary price cap for Lantus at $99 per month \u2014 in the context of insulin pricing legislation and enormous public pressure \u2014 while Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk made similar announcements. These announcements were commercial decisions made in response to political pressure, not outcomes of patent expiration. They do not negate the 23-year effective exclusivity period that glargine enjoyed from 2000 to 2023 in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The glargine story ranks first on this list because it combines every element of long-running pharmaceutical patent strategy: a 26-year base from original filing to first biosimilar entry (1988-2014), a secondary patent wall extending effective exclusivity to at least 2016 in practice, a formulation successor in Toujeo carrying protection to 2030, and a commercial exclusivity mechanism \u2014 rebate-driven formulary positioning \u2014 that operates independently of patent protection entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Total effective commercial exclusivity for branded glargine in the United States: 23 years from launch. Total revenue generated by Lantus alone: over $100 billion globally. If you add Toujeo’s projected revenues through 2030, the glargine franchise will have generated over $130 billion in revenues from a molecule based on modification of a 100-year-old hormone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That number does not exist without the IP strategy. Neither does the access problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Common Thread: Four Strategies That Run Through Every Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Looking across all ten cases, four strategic patterns appear consistently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first is the shift from compound patents to portfolio patents. Every long-lived pharmaceutical franchise on this list had its effective exclusivity extended not by a single strong patent but by a portfolio of secondary patents that individually were weaker but collectively created an uncertain and expensive landscape for challengers. Companies that file patents strategically \u2014 not just on the active compound but on every method, formulation, and device associated with the drug \u2014 consistently achieve longer exclusivity than companies that rely on composition-of-matter protection alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second is successor product development timed to primary patent expiration. AstraZeneca moved from omeprazole to esomeprazole. Novartis moved from imatinib to nilotinib. Sanofi moved from Lantus to Toujeo. In each case, the successor drug was launched with enough lead time before the primary drug genericized that physicians had already developed prescribing habits favoring the successor. The successor’s patent protection then extended the franchise without requiring the legal battles that patent defense of the primary drug demanded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third is geographic arbitrage. Every major drug on this list has a different effective exclusivity period in the United States, Europe, India, and other jurisdictions. Companies manage these differences strategically \u2014 licensing biosimilars or generics for early entry in markets where their patent position is weak while defending aggressively in the United States, where the combination of Orange Book listings, Paragraph IV litigation, BPCIA patent dance mechanics, and PBM formulary dynamics creates the longest achievable effective exclusivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fourth is the distinction between legal and commercial exclusivity. Patents expire. Commercial exclusivity \u2014 created by rebate structures, formulary positioning, patient assistance programs that discourage switching, and physician prescribing inertia \u2014 does not expire on a legal timeline. The most sophisticated pharmaceutical IP strategies treat patent protection as one input into commercial exclusivity, not as the complete picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

What This Means for Payers, Investors, and Patients<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For payers \u2014 insurance companies, PBMs, government programs \u2014 the lesson from these ten cases is that patent expiration dates in the Orange Book or Purple Book are necessary but not sufficient inputs for formulary planning. A drug whose primary patents expired in 2016 (Humira) may not achieve meaningful biosimilar penetration until 2024 or later. Budget models that project generic or biosimilar savings at the date of primary patent expiration will consistently overstate savings and understate costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For investors, the lesson runs in both directions. Companies with deep secondary patent portfolios and successor products in development command valuation premiums that may be justified even as primary patents expire. AbbVie’s stock price held through Humira’s 2016 primary patent expiration precisely because sophisticated analysts understood that effective exclusivity was not ending in 2016. Conversely, companies that rely on single composition-of-matter patents with no secondary portfolio face patent cliffs that are genuinely precipitous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch and comparable patent analytics platforms allow investors to model these portfolios at the filing level, tracking not just expiration dates but challenge histories, litigation outcomes, and comparative analysis of how similar patent types have fared in court. The analytical value of that granular data compounds over time as patterns emerge across therapeutic categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For patients, the lesson is unwelcome but accurate: the price of a drug is only weakly related to its scientific novelty or clinical value. It is strongly related to the IP estate protecting it, the formulary positioning that payers negotiate, and the commercial lifecycle management decisions that manufacturers make years before most patients are affected by them. Understanding these dynamics does not immediately reduce drug costs, but it informs the policy debates \u2014 over patent term limits, evergreening restrictions, biosimilar interchangeability, and PBM transparency \u2014 that will eventually determine how much the next generation of patients pays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Patent Reform Debate: Where It Stands<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Congress and the FDA have made incremental moves against evergreening practices over the past decade. The Inflation Reduction Act’s drug pricing negotiation provisions, which took effect for the first negotiated drugs in 2026, represent the most significant structural intervention in branded drug pricing in the Medicare program’s history. They do not directly address patent accumulation but create financial pressure on manufacturers of drugs that have been on the market longer than a defined threshold without competitive alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created by the America Invents Act of 2011, provides an administrative mechanism for challenging pharmaceutical patents outside federal court litigation. PTAB proceedings are faster and cheaper than Paragraph IV litigation, and the institution rate for pharmaceutical patent challenges has been substantial. AbbVie’s Humira patents faced multiple PTAB petitions with mixed outcomes. Drug manufacturers have lobbied aggressively \u2014 and with some success \u2014 for limitations on PTAB jurisdiction over pharmaceutical patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the biosimilar space, the FDA’s interchangeability designation program, under which Semglee received the first interchangeable biosimilar designation in 2021, was designed to encourage pharmacy-level substitution and drive biosimilar adoption. Adoption remains slower than regulators had projected, reflecting the commercial exclusivity mechanisms \u2014 not legal mechanisms \u2014 that keep branded biologics on formulary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Senate HELP Committee has held multiple hearings on pharmaceutical patent practices. The most commonly proposed reforms include prohibiting Orange Book listing of device and formulation patents that are not directly tied to the active ingredient, restricting pay-for-delay settlements, and establishing a “use-it-or-lose-it” provision under which patents that are never litigated cannot be used to trigger Hatch-Waxman stays. None of these reforms has been enacted as of the publication of this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The ten cases examined here demonstrate that effective pharmaceutical exclusivity is engineered, not granted. The gap between statutory patent terms and real-world exclusivity periods runs, on average, seven to twelve years across the drugs on this list. That gap is not accidental; it is the product of coordinated legal, regulatory, and commercial strategy deployed systematically by the most profitable companies in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tools available to analyze this gap \u2014 patent databases, Orange Book filings, PTAB petition records, litigation dockets, and biosimilar application tracking \u2014 are publicly available. Professionals who use them systematically to model realistic exclusivity timelines will consistently produce more accurate analyses than those who rely on company guidance or primary patent expiration dates alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several specific lessons emerge from the rankings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A drug’s primary composition-of-matter patent is the beginning of the IP story, not the end. Secondary patents covering formulations, devices, metabolites, and methods of use routinely extend effective exclusivity by three to ten years beyond the primary patent expiration. The full picture requires reviewing every Orange Book or Purple Book listing, not just the headline patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biosimilar market dynamics are structurally different from small-molecule generic dynamics. Even after all relevant patents expire, biosimilar penetration typically takes two to five years to reach the 20 percent market share threshold used as the competitive entry benchmark. Commercial exclusivity \u2014 formulary positioning, rebate structures, physician inertia \u2014 is a distinct phenomenon from legal exclusivity and requires separate analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Geographic arbitrage is systematic. U.S. effective exclusivity periods are consistently longer than European periods for the same drugs, by an average of four to eight years across the cases examined here. This reflects differences in patent law, data exclusivity frameworks, and commercial infrastructure \u2014 differences that manufacturers exploit deliberately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Successor products are the most durable form of lifecycle management. Moving patients from an aging patent to a successor molecule before genericization occurs \u2014 and building prescribing habit around the successor \u2014 is more financially resilient than litigation-based patent defense. Companies that execute this transition effectively, as Novartis did with imatinib\/nilotinib and AstraZeneca did with omeprazole\/esomeprazole, maintain franchise revenues long after competitors have taken legal patents away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most expensive pharmaceutical IP strategies are those that work. Humira’s $311-patent thicket, OxyContin’s reformulation gambit, Nexium’s enantiomer pivot \u2014 each was criticized at the time and each generated tens of billions of dollars in retained revenues. Criticism and commercial success are not mutually exclusive. The ethical and policy dimensions of these strategies are real, but ignoring their financial logic produces analysis that fails to anticipate how companies will behave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

FAQ<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Q: Is building a large patent portfolio around a drug actually legal under U.S. law?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patent accumulation \u2014 filing multiple patents covering different aspects of a drug \u2014 is entirely legal under current U.S. law, provided each patent meets the requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and utility. Listing multiple patents in the Orange Book triggers the 30-month stay mechanism for each, which is also legal. Where legal risk arises is in pay-for-delay settlements \u2014 agreements under which a brand manufacturer pays a generic challenger to delay entry \u2014 which the Supreme Court held in FTC v. Actavis<\/em> (2013) to be subject to antitrust scrutiny under a “rule of reason” analysis. Pay-for-delay settlements have declined since Actavis<\/em>, but they have not disappeared entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q: How can I identify which drugs are most likely to face genuine generic or biosimilar competition in the next five years?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most reliable method is to track the Orange Book (for small molecules) or the FDA’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) patent dance records (for biologics) and map all listed patents by their expiration dates. Platforms like DrugPatentWatch aggregate this data and track challenge filings and outcomes, which is the fastest way to identify drugs whose patent estates have already faced successful Paragraph IV challenges or PTAB petitions. A drug with multiple invalidated secondary patents is structurally closer to real competition than one whose patent estate has never been tested in litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q: Do patients in other countries benefit from earlier generic or biosimilar entry for these drugs?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, consistently. European patients had access to adalimumab biosimilars from 2018, five years before U.S. patients. European patients have had generic imatinib since 2016, the same year as the United States, but at significantly lower prices because European reference pricing systems constrain launch prices in ways the U.S. system does not. In India, the Supreme Court’s Novartis<\/em> ruling created a legal framework under which incremental modifications of known molecules \u2014 the basis of most secondary patents \u2014 do not receive patent protection, leading to earlier and cheaper generic entry. The gap in drug prices between the United States and the rest of the developed world is primarily a function of patent law and pricing regulation differences, not cost structure differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q: Why don’t payers simply refuse to cover drugs with extensive patent thickets and put pressure on manufacturers that way?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Payers do attempt to use formulary leverage against high-cost drugs, but the leverage is asymmetric for drugs with no therapeutic alternative. A PBM can threaten to exclude Humira from formulary only if rheumatoid arthritis patients and their physicians can be directed to an alternative \u2014 Enbrel, Remicade, or later biosimilars. For drugs with genuine clinical differentiation or for which no substitutable alternative exists, payers have little credible bargaining power. The rebate system further complicates this: because manufacturers offer larger rebates to payers who grant exclusive or preferred formulary access, payers sometimes have a financial incentive to exclude biosimilars or generics that would reduce the rebate income they receive. This creates a situation where the entity nominally responsible for managing drug costs has a financial interest in not fully managing them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q: What would happen to pharmaceutical innovation if secondary patents were prohibited and only composition-of-matter patents were allowed?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the central debate in pharmaceutical patent reform, and it does not have a clean empirical answer. Arguments in favor of restricting secondary patents contend that formulation and method-of-use patents rarely represent significant innovation and primarily function to delay competition. Arguments against contend that secondary innovations \u2014 better delivery mechanisms, abuse-deterrent formulations, pediatric dosing regimens \u2014 represent real value, and that eliminating secondary patent protection would reduce the incentive to develop these improvements. The economic literature on this question is inconclusive, partly because it is impossible to observe the counterfactual innovation that would have occurred under different IP regimes. What the evidence does show is that the current system produces drug prices in the United States substantially higher than in other developed nations with more restrictive secondary patent rules \u2014 and that those other nations do not appear to experience meaningfully different rates of pharmaceutical innovation directed at their markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Patent data referenced in this article draws on publicly available Orange Book filings, USPTO records, FDA biologics databases, and DrugPatentWatch’s patent expiration tracking platform. Revenue figures are sourced from company annual reports and independent pharmaceutical market research. Legal analysis reflects publicly available court records and academic commentary. This article does not constitute legal or investment advice.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Ranked Investigation Into the Drug Industry’s Most Enduring IP Fortresses \u2014 and What They Cost You Pharmaceutical patents are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":34926,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24217"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24217\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36684,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24217\/revisions\/36684"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34926"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}