|Azithromycin: a case in point|
A capacity audience of nearly 100 (thanks to a batch of late registrations from local practitioners and an unusually low level of no-shows, despite the torrential rain) heard Galit give an account not only of her findings but, in some detail, of her methodology in constructing a model for the analysis of her target group of specific types of secondary pharmaceutical patent applications and their subsequent fate, using data drawn from the United States during the years 2001-2006. This model, Galit averred during question time, should be capable of application to other markets and databases once any necessary adjustments had been made [readers will instantly recognise at this point that the IPKat is thinking: "to what extent does research based on US data and models reflect reality in other jurisdictions?"]. Once Galit had explained her thesis, she then had to defend it, as questions and comments from the expert panellists (Mr Justice Arnold, from the Patents Court, England and Wales) and Professor Jo Gibson (Queen Mary and the Intellectual Property Institute) gave Galit the chance to clarify, to explain and to demonstrate both her mastery of the topic and her palpable enthusiasm for it.
If this Kat were allowed just one take-away gem from this treasure-trove of fascinating fact, it would be the astonishing (to him, at any rate) revelation that two-thirds of the applications for secondary patents during the sample period were made not by the innovator company which patented the pharma product in the first place but by a generic competitor. Well, that's one cherished illusion gone!
A blog post cannot really do justice to a presentation of this quality, but readers can read the entire PhD thesis for themselves since Galit has kindly made it available here (it's 'read only'). Galit's PowerPoint presentation is available here.