No. There's no clear suggestion that the list is incomplete without the, but it's possible that it's incomplete in some sense, and certainly "more possible" than would be the case if the were used.
Including the sends a stronger suggestion that the list is complete. (We can say this if we know nothing more about the context.)
Either way, it is not specified, but a typical reader would assume (either with or without the) that the list includes all approved originator drugs that the writer believes the reader would find relevant; or, that, if it is partial in some sense, this is thought by the writer to be insufficiently important to warrant greater specificity.
Including the tends to send a signal that the writer believes that the reader knows which originator drugs are being discussed.
The absence of the may be a free choice (zero article before originator drugs as a collective mass or substance, and/or originator drugs in some sort of general or imprecise sense, eg, those approved so far at the time of writing).
It's possible that the zero article could signify such kind of impreciseness or tentativeness, whereas the may more likely convey some kind of ... definiteness (!) such as You know which or all (each and every).