Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on April 22, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.

‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

Does encourage new drug innovation
Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Dawns A New Era: Regenerative Medicine For Degenerative Disease

Posted on July 17, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Could breakthrough innovation in ‘Regenerative Medicine’ significantly reduce the need of expensive lifelong medications, or even make the use of some important medical devices less relevant, or even help avoiding expensive and risky surgical interventions? The common answer to these critical questions is now getting clearer, in tandem with the rapid progress of the science of ‘Regenerative Medicine.’

On June 13, 2017, Nature Biomedical Engineering published an interesting an article titled, “3D-printed vascular networks direct therapeutic angiogenesis in ischemia.” In simple words, these 3D-Printed patches are going to usher in a highly innovative way to treat ischemic diseases, in the future. As the researchers highlighted, arterial bypass grafts are currently considered as the gold standard for the treatment of end-stage ischemic disease, though many patients are unable to tolerate the cardiovascular stress of arterial surgery. The researchers found that implantation of 3D-printed grafts containing endothelial-cell-lined lumens, induces spontaneous and geometrically guided generation of collateral circulation in ischemic settings.

In rodent models of hind limb ischemia and myocardial infarction, these scientists successfully demonstrated that the vascular patches rescue perfusion of distal tissues, preventing capillary loss, muscle atrophy and loss of function.

In this article, I shall deliberate on the importance of this discovery, and its overall future implications on a broader perspective.

Regenerative medicine:

Here comes the basic question – What is ‘Regenerative Medicine’?

It is defined as a highly innovative branch of medicine that develops implementable methods to regrow, repair or replace damaged or diseased cells, organs or tissues. According to RegerativeMedicine.net following are illustrations of some conditions or diseases that regenerative medicine has the potential to cure, and what their current state of treatment looks like in in the American perspective:

Heart valves- 250,000 patients receive heart valves, at a cost of US$27 billion annually
Heart disease and Stroke- 950,00 people die of heart disease or stroke, at a cost of US$ 351 billion annually
Diabetes- 17 million patients have diabetes, at a cost of US$ 132 billion annually

I discussed in this blog, the subject of ‘3D Printing in health care’ on January 11, 2016. Hence, won’t dwell on that subject here

Ischemia, and the relevance of the above discovery:

Ischemia, as many would know, is a condition that restricts adequate flow of blood in some parts of our body, which over a period, may narrow, harden or even block the important blood vessels, much often resulting in stroke, heart attack or other related life-threatening vascular disorders.

Currently, ischemic heart conditions are usually treated either with blood thinning drugs, or blood vessel relaxants. In more serious stages of this condition, doctors prefer angioplasty or other surgical interventions, such as coronary artery bypass.

In this broad perspective, the relevance of the above discovery in addressing various debilitating or life- threatening ischemic conditions, is profound. Its novelty lies in the ability of the scientists making a 3D-printed patch that can be infused with cells to help grow healthy new blood vessels.

An emerging medical space:

The science of ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is increasingly being considered as an emerging medical space aimed at the treatment of those diseases that are usually classified as degenerative, incurable and irreversible. As it appears today, this science has the potential to unfold a new paradigm in this space, where patients can expect cure for many serious ailments, such as, spinal injuries, heart disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s disease and even diabetes, besides many others.

One more recent pursuit in this much uncharted frontier was reported in the British news daily – ‘The Telegraph’ on February 21, 2017, revealing the outcome of a path-breaking medical study for freezing the progression of a crippling ailment called Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This research followed a unique Stem Cell (SC) transplantation process, and is regarded as the largest long-term follow-up of SC transplantation treatment study of MS in regenerative medicine.

This study, spearheaded by Imperial College London, established that 46 per cent of patients who underwent the treatment did not suffer a worsening of their condition for five years. The process works by destroying the immune cells responsible for attacking the nervous system. This is indeed a very significant development in the space of medical research.

The treatment, called autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT), was given to patients with advanced forms of MS who had failed to respond to other medications. However, the researchers noted that the nature of the treatment, which involves aggressive chemotherapy, carried “significant risks”.

As many would know, MS is caused by the immune system malfunctioning and mistakenly attacking nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, leading to problems with movement, vision, balance and speech. It’s a lifelong condition and often causes serious disability, with no cure still in sight. The disease is most commonly diagnosed in people in their 20s and 30s, although it can develop at any age.

A potential game changer:

According to California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), this procedure has a game changing potential for successful use:

To replace neurons damaged by spinal cord injury, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or other neurological problems

To produce insulin that could treat people with diabetes, and heart muscle cells that could repair damage after a heart attack, or

To replace virtually any tissue or organ that is injured or diseased

Research on “Regenerative Medicine’ signals a new hope:

Following are examples of just a few more promising developments, indicating that research in ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is taking rapid strides, signaling a new hope:

- A cure for Type 1 diabetes:

According to an international report on October 9, 2014, for the first time after 23 years of research, Harvard University has been able to manufacture millions of beta cells required for transplantation. It could mean a cure for diabetes, and the end of daily insulin injections for patients living with Type 1 diabetes. Although, just around 10 per cent of all diabetes is Type 1, it is the most common type of childhood diabetes.

The report indicated, the stem cell-derived beta cells are presently undergoing trials in animal models, including non-human primates, where they are still producing insulin after several months.

Another report of April 2014 indicates that for the first time, scientists have successfully replaced the damaged DNA of a type 1 diabetes sufferer with the healthy genetic material of an infant donor. When these cells are injected back into the diabetic patient, it is expected that they will begin to produce insulin on their own.

- Restoring vision in macular degeneration:

Yet another study published in ‘The Lancet’ in October 2014 stated that scientists in the United States have announced that single transplant of stem cells has helped restore the sight of patients suffering from incurable forms of blindness due to Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD). Currently no effective treatments exist for this eye disorder, which can cause complete blindness due to the loss of light-receiving photoreceptor cells in the retina.

To recreate a type of cell in the retina that supports those photoreceptors, the new treatment uses stem cells derived from embryos that are only a few days old and have the ability to develop into any kind of tissue in the body. However, the transplants have proved controversial because they use stem cells derived from spare human embryos left over from IVF treatment.

- A cure for heart failure:

One more international report of May 01, 2014 states, by injecting human stem cells into the organs of macaque monkeys, scientists have been able to regenerate their damaged hearts by up to 40 per cent in just a few weeks. Thus, it appears now that a cure for heart failure could be just a few years away and would mean that even people who are “bed-bound” with heart failure could be “up and about” again within a few weeks.

As on date, the heart muscle cannot be repaired, making people with severe heart failure necessarily wait for a heart transplant, provided the patients are willing, and can afford so.

Conclusion:

There is a host of diseases, including several chronic ailments, such as diabetes, heart conditions, rheumatoid arthritis, or some types of cancer, which can’t be reversed, however, could be managed with a lifelong treatment. For most of these diseases, ‘Regenerative Medicine’ has the potential to be a game changer by transforming many lives.

Moreover, ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is expected not just to bring down the cost of health care and the disease burden significantly, but would also help increasing the economic productivity of a nation considerably.

Currently, medical research of the highest order in this area, has mostly been conducted by various academia of global repute, along with a few in the industry. It should soon involve, besides patients, several industries, including pharmaceuticals and biotech sectors, in a big way.

Nevertheless, this emerging trend sends a clear signal that to treat various chronic, incurable, irreversible and seriously debilitating degenerative diseases ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is now poised to take a giant leap in the health care space. In that process, it would possibly help healing various ailments in a more meaningful, providing a cure for many chronic diseases that was a badly missing piece in the medical science, so far.

Thus, ‘Regenerative Medicines’ to treat many ‘Degenerative Diseases’ signal a great potential to give an altogether new shape and dimension to the future of global health care. It is also expected to ensure lesser lifelong usage of expensive drugs, setting a new normal to bring back the patients’ lives back to the pre-disease state.

By: Tapan J. Ray

At The Indian IPR Front: ‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’

Posted on September 5, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The incessant pressure of the developing countries on India, from 2005 to date, to include various restrictive conditions in the Indian Patents Act 2005, still continue. This demand spans across the inclusion of even those provisions, which many experts term as TRIPS-Plus, as these are not required by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. More interestingly, the pressure group also insists on the simultaneous deletion or dilution of some existing important provisions in the statute that guarantee public health interest of the nation.

This pressure is expected to mount in the G20 summit of September 4-5, which is now being held in China.

Refreshingly, on 30 August 2016, just ahead of this summit, the eminent economist Dr. Arvind Panagariya, who is also the incumbent Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog of India, and India’s Sherpa at the G20 summit reiterated, as follows, in an interview to a leading National English Business Daily:

“India has strongly opposed the language of the draft on Intellectual Property Protection (IPR) to be taken up at the upcoming G20 meeting in Beijing.”

In the interview, having re-emphasized the critical point that “there is a certain flexibility that we have under the TRIPS agreement and anything that dilutes that flexibility is not acceptable to India,” Dr. Panagariya clearly reaffirmed, yet again that ‘Indian IPR laws and policies are absolutely TRIPS compliant’.

This statement indeed sends a very positive signal to all on the ground, regarding the robust position maintained by the Government, to ward off any move by the overseas vested business interest to derail the flexibility that Indian well-balanced patent regime offers today, not just for public health, but also to foster innovation ecosystem in the country.

At the same time, India’s Sherpa at G20 summit also reportedly clarified that the IPR framework being proposed at the G20, in its strictest sense, cannot be construed as TRIPS-Plus. Nevertheless, some language used in the proposed G20 draft could be subject to interpretation, and India feels that it should not leave any room for ambiguity that has the potential to stretch this demand further, as we move on.

According to Dr. Panagariya: “Right now, these documents have some language where people in the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) feel that it impinges a bit. We have to fight it out at the summit.”

The basis of apprehension:

There are many reasons for the recent apprehension that India may buckle under the US pressure to dilute its IP laws and policies. One of the reasons could well be a possibility that India has come to an understanding with USTR in this area.

An interesting article published in the ‘spicyip’ on March 14, 2016 also captured this scenario pretty well. I am reproducing below in verbatim a paragraph of this paper, just as an example:

“Last month, the Indian government privately assured the US-India Business Council (“USIBC’’) that it would not invoke compulsory licensing for commercial purposes, as reported in their submissions (available here) to the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) for the 2016 Special 301 Review. The USIBIC stated that it would be “further encouraged” if the government of India were to make a public commitment, or a written declaration to only issue compulsory licenses in the event of public health emergencies, and not for commercial purposes. This, in their eyes, would “greatly enhance legal certainty for innovative industries”. While such a private assurance doesn’t give rise to any legal commitments, it may well be indicative of a policy shift.”

Prior to this, among many others, a March 3, 2016 ‘The Wire’ report captioned “India Assures the US it Will Not Issue Compulsory Licenses on Medicines”, also raised the same red flag.

The pressure continues even post engagement:

Be that as it may, America has been, repeatedly, raising its concerns over India’s patent regime, driven by its powerful pharma lobby groups.

To keep the kettle boiling, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in its 2016 Special 301 Report released this year on April 12, continued to keep India, along with 11 countries, on the Priority Watch List (PWL) for the current year.

USTR reportedly expressed serious concern about Indian IP policies stating that the regime apparently ‘favor’ indigenous manufacturing or Indian innovators. It also alleged that such direction ‘damages’ the patent infrastructure not just in India, but across the world.

It is believed by many that the Special 301 Report is, in fact, a formal posturing of the country on their unilateral IP related business hurdles for the year, exhibiting the power to implement unilateral trade sanctions when the US demands are not met.

In that context, the 2016 Special 301 Report caught many by surprise, as the Indian ‘IPR Think Tank’ (a body of the Union Government-selected experts) was also working closely with the United States to identify and address their issues of concern, such as, patent system, copyright infringement, trademark and counterfeiting, among others.

At that time, this discussion was possibly in its final stage as, just a month after, on May 12, 2016, the Union Cabinet approved the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR) of India, as proposed by the ‘Think Tank’, in consultation with, among others, especially the United States, which reportedly expressed its overall satisfaction with the final IPR policy.

Key concerns:

From the pharma industry perspective, the key IP concerns are centered, primarily, in the following three areas, besides a few others:

Patentability
Compulsory Licensing (CL)
Data Exclusivity

I would, therefore, concentrate briefly on these three areas to argue how reasonable is the Indian Patents Act 2005 to create a win-win situation both for the patients and the industry while fostering pharma innovation in the country.

Patentability:

One of their key concerns on patentability, revolves round an important provision in the statute – Section 3 (d).

Pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs), and their trade associations have been going overboard, since long, to lobby hard to make all concerned believe that section 3 (d) is a stumbling block for pharma innovation, as it does not allow patent protection on known chemical substances lacking any significant improvement in clinical efficacy.

This provision of the statute prevents ever-greening of patents with frivolous incremental innovation. Consequently, it blocks the possibility of pricing such ‘me too’ new molecules, exorbitantly, and persuading the prescribers of the existing molecule switching over to the new brand, backed by contentious marketing campaigns, adversely impacting affordability and access to the majority of the patients in India.

Notwithstanding the shrill voices of vested interests, Section 3 (d) has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the famous Glivec case of Novartis against Cipla.

The Submission of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to USTR for the Review of ‘2016 Special 301 Report’, categorically also states that the Indian Patent Act prescribes a higher threshold on inventive step for medicines, which is in keeping with the TRIPS Agreement, Paris Convention and the Doha Declaration. Hence, Section 3 (d) is sound in terms of the TRIPS, Public policy and Health policy.

Compulsory License (CL):

Besides the hard fact that India has, so far, granted just one CL in a span of more than the last ten years, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement related public health clearly provides the flexibility to all its member states to decide on the necessary grounds for granting CL. It is noteworthy that for public health interest, TRIPS flexibilities for CL has been used even by the developed countries, such as, Canada, United States and Germany, in the not too distant past.

Data exclusivity:

The terminologies ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Data Protection’ are quite often used interchangeably by many, creating a great deal of confusion on the subject. However, in a true sense these are quite different issues having a critical impact on the public health interest of a nation.

In an article published in ‘ipHandbook’, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift, a former Secretary, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health Organization; differentiated these two terminologies as follows:

Data Protection (DP): Protection of commercially valuable data held by the drug regulator against disclosure and unfair commercial use.

Data Exclusivity (DE): A time bound form of Intellectual Property (IP) protection that seeks to allow companies recouping the cost of investment in producing data required by the regulatory authority.

According to Charles Clift, Article 39.3 only articulates widely accepted trade secret and unfair competition law, and is not an invitation to create new IP rights, per se, for test data. Nor does it prevent outside parties from relying on the test data submitted by an originator, except in case of unfair commercial practices.

Some developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union have argued that Article 39.3 of TRIPS requires countries to create a regime of DE, which is a new form of time-limited IP protection. However, it is worth noting that in both these countries DE regime was adopted prior to the TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS-Plus’.

In its new IPR Policy, India has successfully resisted the demands of TRIPs-Plus provisions, such as, data exclusivity, patent linkage and patent-term extension.

Even the draft IPR policy had reiterated that India accepts: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

Any near-term possibility of a change in the statute?

While the new IPR Policy of India focuses on consolidating institutional mechanisms to create a robust IPR ecosystem in the country, besides resolving some pressing issues, such as, expediting approval processes involving patents or trademarks, it does not indicate any possible change in the important provisions in the Patents Act 2005, including the much talked about Section 3 (d) and compulsory licensing, despite concerns expressed by the US and pharma companies.

Moreover, a May 13, 2016 Press Trust of India (PTI) report on the Union Cabinet approval of Indian IPR Policy quoted a Government official, as follows, negating the apprehensions that the government may yield to the pressure of developed countries with regard to its IR regime:

“India will never go beyond its current commitments in the TRIPS. Section 3 (d), patent linkage, data exclusivity and compulsory licensing are red lines.”

On the same day and in the same context, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also reportedly stressed that India’s IPR policies are TRIPS-compliant and encourage invention of life-saving drugs, while at the same time, “we must also be conscious of the need to make it available at a reasonable cost so that drug cost does not become prohibitive as has become in some parts of the world”, he articulated, unambiguously.

Conclusion:

Despite all these developments, reiterations and interpretations, a lurking fear on India’s diluting the current patent regime of the nation was refusing to die down in the country.

Many experts were also quite apprehensive about what would be India’s stand on IP in the G 20 summit on September 4-5, currently being held in China.

Is it, then, just a storm in a tea cup on the ground?

This is not a very easy question to answer, though, as many industry watchers sense. Nonetheless, yet another emphatic statement on the subject coming from a top Government echelon and none other than Dr. Arvind Panagariya, the Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog and India’s Sherpa at G20 summit, possibly sends a clear message, at least for now, to all those holding ground in the Indian IPR front:

‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

Posted on June 6, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Today, although a number of new and state of the art drugs is regularly being developed, and brought to the market at a reasonably rapid pace, their access to the majority of the global population has still remained a huge challenge. One of the key access barriers continue to remain exorbitant prices of these drugs.

Keeping commensurate pace with gradual improvement in the pinpointed diagnosis of various diseases with modern diagnostics, processes, devices and techniques, fueled by increasing health awareness within a sizeable section of the population, more patients are now aspiring for access to a better quality of life, and greater productivity at work. This is happening all over the world, though with varying degree and magnitude.

Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the demand for healthcare, which has caused a huge bottleneck in the overall healthcare delivery process, for various reasons. The huge gap between the availability of high-tech drugs/healthcare services, and their access to the general population, mostly due to affordability reasons, is going north at a rapid pace.

Two-pronged cost containment pressure:

This unfettered ascending trend is creating primarily the following two types of cost containment pressure:

Being driven purely by the economical reasons, the Governments and other payers have started taking stringent cost-containment measures, bringing huge pricing pressure, especially on the drugs and medical device manufacturers.

In countries, such as, India, where the ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on healthcare in general, and the medicines in particular, is hovering around 70 percent, the patients, several Governments have started announcing drug price control policy to protect the health interest of patients.

However, currently, only some piecemeal measures are being initiated, including in India, where a holistic approach for all, such as, Universal Health Care (UHC) and several other similar options, are long overdue.

Three different remedial measures:

In my view, consideration of either of these three following approaches, or an innovative blend of these, would enable the Governments to address this pressing issue, remove the existing bottle neck, and thereby bridge the healthcare access gap, holistically:

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC).

B. Closer look at the entire Pharmaceutical Value Chain with a resolve to work out innovative, game-changing solutions to reduce cost of each of its critical components, significantly.

C. Effectively addressing the emerging need of Patient-Centricity.

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC):

I have already discussed UHC in one of my articles titled, “Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?”, published in this Blog on November 9, 2015.

B. Cost containment with 3D printing:

A report of IMS Health, published on November 18, 2015, forecasts the increase of total global spend for pharmaceuticals by US$ 349 billion on a constant-dollar basis, compared with US$182 billion during the past five years. It also indicated, more than half of the world’s population will live in countries where the use of medicine will exceed one dose per person per day by 2020, up from 31 percent in 2005, as the “medicine use gap” between the developed and the emerging markets narrows.

This steep ascending trend would eventually affect the pharma ‘Value Chain’ in a significant way, throwing open several path-breaking high-technology based options, with impressive favorable impact on the general costs of medicines. 3D-printing technology is expected to play a significant role in this initiative.

Before proceeding further, let me zero-in on a few critical components, as follows, of the pharma ‘Value Chain’, as I see visualize these:

Drug innovation (R&D)
Manufacturing
Marketing
Supply Chain

According to my understanding, at least in 3 of the above 4 ‘Value Chain’ components, there is an immense potential of leveraging 3D printing technology effectively, and in a big way.

In my article of January 11, 2016, published in this Blog, titled “3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business”, I have already discussed the game changing impact of 3D Printing technology on the drug discovery process, drug manufacturing strategy, and supply Chain effectiveness in the pharma business.

Hence, I prefer not to dwell on those areas, yet again, here. Instead, I shall briefly deliberate on the application of 3D Printing technology to effectively address the emerging need of ‘Patient-Centricity’ with an interesting and a very recent example.

C. Improving ‘Patient-Centricity’ with 3D printing:

At this stage, there is a need to understand what exactly is the ‘’Patient-Centricity’. It seems to be a popular buzzword now with the health care related companies, primarily to give an impression that they are really focusing on ‘Patient-Centricity’.

However, there does not seem to exist any universally accepted definition of this terminology, just yet. Nevertheless, one appropriate definition could well be: “A focused and transparent approach to providing maximum possible benefits to a patient from a drug, device, technology, or health care services.”

I briefly focused on a part of this basic issue in my article titled, “‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’- An evolving trend’, published in this Blog on January 7, 2013.

As I said before, in this article, to explain ‘Patient-Centric’ approaches with 3D printing, I would quote from a very recent, and a path-breaking work in this area.

On May 25, 2016, ‘The Straits Times’ reported, the researchers at the National University of Singapore have found a way to use 3D printers to create low-cost tablets. With the help of this technology a tablet can be so personalized to respond to individual patient’s needs that the drug can be customized to take on different release profiles, such as, constant release, pulsed release, increasing or decreasing release, and any arbitrary interval as required by the patient. However, the most striking is, different drugs with different release profiles can also be combined in a single pill.

Once administered, the tablet dissolves layer by layer over a period of time, releasing the drug at a controlled rate. The duration can be altered by changing the chemical composition of the liquid.

It is worth noting here that the conventional tablets are only capable of a constant rate of release, requiring the patient to manually control the dosage and release rate, by taking doses according to a prescribed schedule, given by the doctor. In this scenario, if a patient requires different drugs with different dosages and intervals, it can become inconvenient to keep track and potentially dangerous, especially when the patient misses a dose, the report highlighted.

The commercially available printer used in the project costs just S$2,000.

The Assistant Professor Soh Siow Ling, who leads the project, reportedly, expects that the low cost will allow it to be used in hospitals and neighborhood clinics. He further explained, “Every single person is different, based on many factors such as genetics, age, body mass and so on. Different people also have different activity levels and consumption habits, which affect their needs. It is, (therefore), not desirable to use the same drug to treat different illnesses which have similar apparent symptoms.”

The report indicated that in October, 2015, these findings were published in an issue of Advanced Materials, which is a peer-reviewed materials science journal.

A patent for the tablets was filed last year, and they are currently in talks with multinational corporations, and medical professionals to identify potential applications, the article highlighted.

Changing role of doctors:

From the above developments, it appears that unleashing the full potential of 3D printing technology in the pharma industry, would also enable the medical profession to move further towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in its true sense.

This technology would empower them offering to each patient, the right drug or drug combinations, with most suitable drug delivery system, and exactly the way individual patients would prefer, with a very high degree of precision.

Thus, from overall disease treatment perspective, especially with medicines, this approach offers a great potential to be significantly more effective, and convenient to individual patients, as compared to the conventional approaches.

I reckon, over a period of time, professional competitiveness would drive the doctors further honing their effectiveness in the disease treatment process, and that too with a high degree of precision. In that situation, many doctors may decide to setup on-demand 3D drug-printing facilities even at their clinics.

The gradual embodiment of this brilliant technology by the doctors, is expected to throw open new vistas of opportunity, also to personalize the shapes, colors and flavors of any medicine, according to individual patient’s choice. This, in turn, would improve patient compliance, ensure a predictable relief from the disease, and demonstrate ‘Patient-Centricity’ of a high order by the medical profession, in general.

Conclusion:

For the first time ever, with Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States getting approval of the US-FDA on August 3, 2015 for the market launch of a 3D printed prescription drug for oral use by the epilepsy patients, dawns a new paradigm in the global pharma business horizon.

Effective application of this ‘disruptive innovation’ could well be a game changer not just in the ‘value chain’ of conventional pharma business models, across the world, but also for taking a giant leap towards ‘Patient-Centricity’. The doctors are also expected to be very much an integral part of this process.

Besides all the above benefits, 3D printing can also encourage low-volume production, whenever required, and a wide variety of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, to meet any immediate demand, mostly for use in research and developmental work.

Thus, noting the ongoing significant progress in this area, I reckon, leveraging 3D printing technology in pharma, not just to address the cost containment pressure, effectively, but also to ensure a tangible and visible move towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in true sense. All-round success in the innovative application of this cutting-edge technology in the global pharma industry, would eventually separate men from boys in pursuit of business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On August 3, 2015, Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States took a game changing step towards a new paradigm of the global pharma business. The Company announced that for the first time ever, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved a ‘Three-Dimensional (3D)’ – printed prescription drug for the oral use of epilepsy patients. Although, 3DP has already been used to manufacture medical devices and prosthetics, in the pharma world, this disruptive innovation was never practiced on the ground, till that magic moment came.

The drug is Spritam® (levetiracetam) used as a prescription adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset seizures, myoclonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults and children with epilepsy.

According to this announcement, Spritam® utilizes Aprecia’s proprietary ZipDose® Technology platform, that uses 3D Printing (3DP) to produce a porous formulation that rapidly disintegrates with a sip of liquid.

The 3DP technology:

3DP technology is broadly defined as a process for making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many successive thin layers of a material.

The originator of this game changing development is the renowned academic institution – ‘The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)’in the United States.

Later on, the MIT licensed out the patented 3DP technology for its use in many different other fields. Among pharma companies Aprecia Pharmaceuticals obtained the exclusive rights to 3D-printing technology for pharmaceutical purposes in 2007.

A high potential game changer:

In pharma, 3DP could possibly emerge as a game changing and disruptive innovation, sooner than later. It could radically change the traditional and well-established strategic and operational models of pharma business, especially the drug discovery process, manufacturing strategy and even the disease treatment process, paving a faster pathway for the much awaited ‘Personalized Medicines’, in a large scale.

Lee Cronin, a Professor of Chemistry, Nanoscience and Chemical Complexity at the Glasgow University, says that the 3DP technology could potentially be used to print medicines of many types – cheaply and wherever it is needed. As Professor Cronin says: “What Apple did for music, I’d like to do for the discovery and distribution of prescription drugs.”

3D Printers would also throw open an opportunity of getting any drug tailor made for the individual patient’s needs, such as, exact dosage requirements, size, shape, color and flavor of the pill and also in the most appropriate delivery systems, just as what Aprecia Pharmaceuticals did with Spritam® by using this technology.

In this article, I shall highlight the game changing impact of 3DP only in the following three areas of pharma business:

The drug discovery process
Drug manufacturing strategy
Supply Chain effectiveness

A. Impact on drug discovery process:

A December 29, 2015 article titled, “Click chemistry, 3D-printing, and omics: the future of drug development”, published in ‘Oncotarget, Advance Publications 2015’ deliberates on the potential of 3DP in the drug discovery process.

The paper states, Genomics has unambiguously revealed that different types of cancers are just not highly complex, they also differ from patient to patient. Thus, conventional treatment approaches for such diseases fit poorly with genomic reality. It is also very likely that similar type of complexity will eventually be identified in many other life-threatening ailments.

Currently, a large number of patients are taking medications that may not help them, on the contrary could harm some of them. The top ten best-selling drugs in the United States are only effective in between 4 percent and 25 percent of the individuals for whom they are prescribed, the paper observes.

However, developing new drugs and tailoring such therapy to each patient’s complicated problem has still remained a major challenge.

One possible solution to this challenge could be to match patients to existing compounds with the help of an equally complicated modelling technique. Nonetheless, optimization of a complex therapy will eventually require designing compounds for patients using computer modeling and just-in-time production. 3DP shows a very high potential to effectively address this complex issue.

This is primarily because, 3DP is potentially transformative by virtue of its ability to rapidly generate almost limitless numbers of objects that previously required manufacturing facilities.

It is also now becoming clearer that with 3DP, scientists will be able to print even the biologic materials, such as, tissues, and eventually organs. Thus, in the near future, it is plausible that high-throughput computing may be deployed to design customized drugs, which will reshape medicine, the article highlights.

In his short ‘Ted Talk Video Clip’ (please click on this link), Professor Lee Cronin explains his working on a 3D printer that, instead of objects, is able to print molecules for a new drug. It could throw open an exciting potential of a long-term application of 3DP for printing, our own customized new medicine by using chemical inks.

In a nutshell, Professor Lee Cronin elucidates in his ‘Ted Talk’, how could the immense potential of 3D printers be leveraged to catalyze the chemical reactions in order to print real drugs, as and when required, according to the requirements of individual patients.

B. Impact on drug manufacturing strategy:

Not just in drug discovery, 3DP would equally be a game changer in pharma manufacturing, the way it is operated today, including the state of the art production facilities.

This could very much happen in tandem with the 3DP drug discovery research, moving towards personalized medicine, and simultaneously making the same 3DP an integral part of the new drug production line.

Moreover, besides the opportunity of getting any drug tailor made for individual patient needs, such as, exact dosage requirements, size, shape, color and flavor of the tablet and also the delivery system, 3DP technology can be most productively used to manufacture high priced low volume and patient-specific orphan drugs for the treatment of critical illnesses.

Even for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), the power and potential of 3DP technology can be well leveraged. On March 12, 2015 the ‘Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)’ of the United States announced that HHMI scientists have designed a revolutionary “3D printer” for small molecules that could open the power of customized chemistry to many.

It further stated, small molecules hold tremendous potential in medicine and technology, but they are difficult to synthesize without proper expertise. The automated “3D printer” designed for small molecules is a way to get around this bottleneck. The new technology has the potential to unlock access to customized molecules in a way that will drive science forward, on many levels. Moreover, the potential for cost-savings with 3DP is huge, improving the drug profitability significantly.

C. Impact on 'supply chain' effectiveness:

Currently, the traditional pharma ‘Supply Chain models’ are primarily based on the following:

Efficiency largely with high volume operation
Need to drive the cost as low as possible
Relatively higher-number of workers
The inventory cost
The real estate cost, owned directly or indirectly, for the entire ‘Supply Chain’ cycle

3DP technology would enable manufacturers shifting the ‘just in time production and distribution’ processes very close to consumers. Such well spread out and ‘just in time’ drug manufacturing activities catering to varying requirements, from very small to very high, would help reduce the cost of logistics, substantially.

This disruptive innovation will enable even the hospitals to print the required drugs at their own locations with, authorized 3DP file downloads, eliminating the need to keep huge inventory and also protecting patients from counterfeit medicines in the ‘Supply Chain’.

Thus, the bottom-line is, the drug companies will be able to print drugs with 3DP technology on real time demand at a large number of selected locations. This will significantly bring down the finished product inventory, starting from companies’ warehouses and distributors to retail and hospital shelves, to almost zero, making pharma supply chain significantly lean and highly effective.

Additionally, it will enable the pharma companies to manufacture drugs also in all developing countries, resulting in improved access to medicine, at a much lesser cost.

Conclusion:

I believe, this technology has already reached a critical juncture, where it is no longer a matter of conjecture that 3DP would ‘soon’ become a game changer, especially for the drug discovery process, manufacturing strategy and supply chain effectiveness of the pharma business, across the world, including India. Getting a prime mover advantage is vital.

However, the question still remains: how soon will this ‘soon’ be?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Indian Patents Act To Prevail Undiluted…Finally

Posted on July 27, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Curiously enough, what a little birdie told me just a couple of weeks ago, very similar to that I read in various media reports even less than a week later.

It was related to a somewhat trepidatious national policy in the making on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India.

One major apprehension, besides a few others on this IPR Policy, was flying all over and nettling many. It was regarding the possibility of tweaking or dilution of the Indian Patents Act by the Government, coming under strong external pressure and also to get support on India’s food security in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Probably to douse this simmering fire of trepidation, well calibrated, unambiguous and reassuring narratives on the subject were unfolded recently by the Government, that too in a quick succession, which were somewhat as under.

On July 20, 2015, at an event organized by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reiterated that:

India’s IPR laws are quite in compliant with the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement.

There is no need for apprehension in any corner of the world as to what India’s patent regime is like.

The Minister also indicated at the same event that following a transparent process of drafting…and redrafting; the final blue print of the IPR policy has now been circulated to all concerned ministries for inter-ministerial consultations. After completion of that process soon, her Ministry would submit the final version to the Cabinet for approval.

It is now anticipated that by the end of this year the first ‘IPR Policy’ of India would be operational.

The creeping angst for a possible twitching in the country’s otherwise robust Patents Act, was mostly originated from a pointed recent utterance of Prime Minister Modi on this issue that we shall quickly explore in this article.

Another stronger assertion:

Immediately thereafter, while commenting on a related article published in an Indian business daily dated July 24, 2015, Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reasserted the following points even more emphatically and virtually in so many words:

India’s IPR laws are fully compliant with international obligations under the TRIPS agreement. This includes the Patents Act, 2005, whose provisions have time and again stood the test of judicial scrutiny.

There is no question of permitting ‘evergreening’ of patents, or of realigning our IPR laws to comply with US laws.

There is no question of sacrificing our IPR laws to get support from a particular country even on food security.

A brief background:

In October 2014, almost immediately after Prime Minister Modi’s return to India from the United States, the the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’, chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan, to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas.

The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised in such reports and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce & Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders, continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing robust patent regime of India.

Taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, the Think Tank’ released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments. According to Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, “Different people, countries, including the United States and other organizations have already given their inputs on the draft policy.”

The new policy would focus on stronger enforcement of IPR by increasing the manpower in IP offices and reducing pendency of IPR filings. It aims at bringing clarity to the existing laws and making changes wherever required to safeguard the interests of Indian industry and patent holders worldwide.

I reviewed this subject in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective.

Most recent apprehension:

The most recent spark for the speculation of a possible dilution in the Indian Patents Act 2005, came from the April 24, 20015 media report that quoted Prime Minister Modi expressing his intent on the issue, seemingly going overboard, as follows:

“India’s patent laws should be brought on par with global standards to make Asia’s third largest economy a hub for outsourced creative services.”

The basic purpose of making such an apparently ambiguous statement may be construed as an attempt to attract more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) for the country.

Whatever it may be, this announcement of the Prime Minister sent a strong signal to many as an impending major shift in his Government’s thinking to move away from an otherwise robust and a decade old IPR regime in India, undoubtedly under intense external pressure.

The above pronouncement from an otherwise tough minded Prime Minister came as a bolt from the blue, as it were, to many stakeholders. This is mainly because; India has so far been maintaining in all forum that its IPR regime is fully TRIPS compliant and garnered enough international support from the experts in this area, including Nobel Laureates.

The Prime Minister made his intent even stronger, when he further elaborated his argument as under:

“If we don’t work towards bringing our intellectual property rights at par with global parameters, then the world will not keep relations with us. If we give confidence to the world on IPR, then we can become a destination globally for their creative work.”

Some American Government agencies reportedly lapped up Prime Minister Modi’s statement as they openly commented as follows:

“The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India expeditiously undertake this initiative”

Intriguing comment:

Prime Minister Modi’s comment in this regard that “India needs to bring its patent laws on par with global standards,” comes of rather intriguing to many domain experts, as TRIPS agreement is the only universally accepted ‘Global Standard’ for IPR. Even the new Government has reiterated that Indian patent regime is fully TRIPS compliant.

India welcomes and encourages innovation:

With the enactment of Patents Act 2005, India has demonstrated that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and pharma patents in particular, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

There are still some loose knots in the process of speedy resolution of all IP related disputes and creation of a desirable ecosystem for innovation in the country, that the new IPR Policy is expected to effectively address, soon.

Two fundamental changes that the US is looking for:

Leaving aside the peripheral ones, the following two are the center pieces where the United States would want India to dilute its Patents Act 2005 considerably:

Patentability for all types of innovation, including ‘me-too’ ones and evergreening of patents, which would delay entry of affordable generic drugs.

“Compulsory Licensing (CL)” provisions, other than during natural calamities.

The status today:

Though the Prime Minister has not further spoken on this subject publicly, from the recent statements of the Union Minster of Commerce and Industry it seems rather clear that for greater public health interest, India has decided to keep its Patents Act undiluted, at least, for now.

The Union Government has distinctly explained its stand in the following two areas:

I. No…No, to ‘Evergreening’ of patents in India:

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet are as expensive, if not more than the original ones.

In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

“Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.”

The study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:

Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘evergreening’ pharmaceutical patents that can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.

Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive steps are used to grant patents.

Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.

Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

Indian Patents Act under its section 3(d), discourages the above practices for public health interest. This particular provision, though absolutely TRIPS compliant is not followed in the developed markets, predominantly for commercial reasons. Hence the mounting pressure is on India for its major dilution.

II. Compulsory License (CL) provisions would stay to prevent misuse and abuse:

This is another major safeguard provision for the patients against abuse and misuse of patents, including obscene price tags of patented drugs, non-working of patents as a commercial strategy, limited availability, besides extreme urgency and some other situations. Though TRIPS very clearly allows all such provisions, India has so far granted just one CL.

With these India has amply demonstrated that CL provisions are important safeguards for the country and not for abuse or misuse by any one, including the Government. Moreover, it has to pass the acid test of rigorous judicial scrutiny that includes the Supreme Court of India.

Despite all these, more scares are being created around CL provisions in India than what is the reality in the country.

Various safeguards and deterrents against misuse and abuse of patents are absolutely essential for public health interest. Hence there is naturally no question of going back from such provisions in the statute.

It is worth noting, if Indian Patent regime is not TRIPS compliant, why hasn’t any country complained against India to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for having all these provisions in the Indian Patents Act, as yet?

India shows the new IPR way:

According to available reports, the following countries are coming closer to the Indian pharma patent regime:

Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents
Peru, Columbia and some other South American countries have placed curbs
Philippines has similar provisions
South Africa is contemplating to incorporate such steps
Australia is deliberating on making the law tougher

Positive reverberations in the domestic pharma sector:

Home grown pharma players seem to be visibly happy too, as the overall stand of the Government in this regards is getting clearer.

This in many ways gets vindicated, when a promoter, chairperson and managing director of a mid-size Indian Pharma and Biotech company, with high media visibility, reportedly comments on the finalization of Indian IPR Policy as follows:

“There is a need to protect interest and disallow monopolies like big pharma or big companies/corporates that want to invest and take advantage of the Indian market.”

Concerns of some ‘Who’s Who’:

The following is just an example of such concern:

On February 10, 2015, the Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, made the following comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’:

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

As things stand today, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz’s worst apprehension on the Indian Patent regime, in all probability would not come true.

Conclusion:

For quite some time, Indian Government has been under intense nagging from the United States, other developed countries, many drug MNCs and the pharma lobby groups lavishly funded by them; to effect major changes in the Patents Act of the country that currently denies unreasonable commercial exploitations, in many ways. Section 3(d) of the statute is just one of the key examples.

The browbeaters of such ilk keep pontificating the importance of ‘innovation’ and that too with a condescending undertone, as if the Indian Government is blissfully ignorant about it.

They allegedly want the Government to dilute the robust safeguard provisions of Indian Patents Act, trying to unfairly tilt the balance of justice in their favor. Consequently, it would go against the patients’ health interest by considerably delaying entry of cheaper generic equivalents, of ‘me-too’ type of inventions, in the country.

Despite initial apprehensions based on the possible misconstrued observation of the Prime Minister Modi on this issue, clear and unambiguous recent assertions of the Government on the patent regime of India, especially in the ‘count-down’ days of the new IPR Policy announcements, is reassuring. It goes without saying, this cannot happen without the benediction of India’s all-powerful Prime minister.

As stated in the draft document, let us hope that the new IPR Policy would help establishing a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.

Under this backdrop, it now emerges almost indubitably that Indian Patents Act 2005 would continue to prevail undiluted much to the dismay of its fiercest critics…Finally?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Media reports are now abuzz with various stories related to intense pressure being created by Big Pharma on the United States Government to declare India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’ for initiating ‘Trade Sanctions’.

As we know, ‘Priority Foreign Country’ is the worst classification given by the United States to “foreign countries” that deny “adequate and effective” protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or “fair and equitable market access” to the US.

One of the key factors that infuriated Big Pharma is the ‘patentability’ criterion of the Indian Patents Act 2005 captured in its section 3(d). This denies grant of patent to those inventions, which are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy, offering no significant treatment advantages over already existing drugs.

A brief perspective:

The sole requirement for any company to enjoy market monopoly with a medicine, for a specific period, with its associated commercial advantages, is obtaining a valid patent for that new drug substance from a competent authority of the concerned country. Marketing approval process and other requirements for the same of the drug regulators do not come in the way of the market monopoly status granted to patented products.

This is mainly because the drug regulators do not require to be convinced that a new drug is an improvement or more effective than the existing ones. As a consequence of which, there has been no compulsion for the Big Pharma to bring to the market only those New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that would significantly improve efficacy of a disease treatment benefitting the patients.

Choosing the easier path:

Developing any NME that is a breakthrough in the treatment of a disease is not just difficult and time consuming, it is very risky too. For this reason, once a new innovative drug gets well established in the market, many companies decide to produce their own versions of the same and obtain patent rights for the new ‘tweaked’ molecules, as is generally believed by many.

This approach of bringing ‘me-too’ types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs into the market is considered much less risky, takes lot lesser time in the R&D process, not as expensive and most importantly, enjoys all the commercial benefits that a break through NME would otherwise derive out of its invention, especially the market monopoly with free pricing.

In his well-known book titled ‘Bad Pharma’, Ben Goldacre stated that, as very often these ‘me-too’ drugs do not offer any significant therapeutic benefits, many people regard them as wasteful, an unnecessary use of product development money, potentially exposing trial participants to unnecessary harm for individual companies commercial gain, rather than any medical advancement.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-too’ molecules:

Examples of some of the ‘me-too’ molecules are as follows:

Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)

Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)

Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

Goldacre further highlighted in his book that despite this fact, pharma market does not behave accordingly. Unlike usual expectations that multiple competing drugs in the same disease area would bring the prices down, a Swedish data showed that the drugs considered by the US-FDA as showing no advantages over the existing ones, enter the market at the same or even at higher prices than the original ones. Consequently, the outcome of such innovations adversely impacts the patients and the payor including the government, as Big Pharma takes full advantage of market monopoly and free pricing for such drugs in the garb of innovation.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-gain’ molecules:

Unlike the above ‘me-too’ drugs, which are new molecules, though work in a similar way to the original ones, another kind of patented drugs have now come-up in a dime a dozen.

Goldacre defined those drugs as ‘me-again’ drugs. These are the same molecule re-launched in the same market at the same price with a different patented ‘enantiomer’. Each of a pair of such molecules is a mirror image of each other e.g. esomeprazole (Nexium) is the left-handed version of the omeprazole molecule (Prilosec), which is a mixture of both left and right handed forms.

There is no dramatic difference between omeprazole and esomeprazole in any respect. Moreover, it is worth noting that concerned constituents of Big Pharma come out with ‘me-again’ drugs only at the end of the patent lives of the original ones. What then could be the reason?

Some examples of ‘me-again’ drugs are as follows:

Enantiomer/Brand	Medical Condition	Original Drug/Brand
Levocetirizine (Vozet)	Allergies	Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)	Depression	Citalopram (Celexa)
Esomeprazole (Nexium)	Acid reflux	Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Desloratadine (Clarinex)	Allergies	Loratadine (Claritan)
Pregabalin (Lyrica)	Seizures	Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Why do the doctors prescribe such drugs?

That is indeed a good question, why do the doctors prescribe such costly, avoidable and so called ‘innovative’ drugs? Well, don’t we know that already?

Section (3d) plugs the loophole:

To discourage market entry of high priced and avoidable ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of drugs that are also an outcome of so called pharma ‘innovations’, the Indian law makers very wisely introduced the section (3d), while amending the Indian Patents Act in 2005. This section, as indicated above, categorically states that inventions that are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable. This law has also passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India in the Glivec case of Novartis.

With this Act, India has unambiguously reiterated that it does not support the grant of patents for inventions that are minor modifications of the original ones, effectively blocking the usual path of patents grant as followed by Big Pharma across the world to enjoy monopolistic commercial advantages of ‘frivolous’ innovations, as called by many experts in this area.

Consequent ire of Big Pharma:

This above action of Indian law makers has raised the ire of Big Pharma, as it has a huge commercial interest to protect ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of innovations in India, even if that comes at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Section (3d) of the Indian Patents Act, therefore, became a major hindrance in meeting the commercial goals of its constituents in India, as such molecules constitute a large majority of the total number of NMEs innovated globally.

As intense power-packed advocacy campaigns of the global pharma companies with the Government of India did not yield any meaningful result to get the section 3(d) amended, it unleashed the might of its well funded lobby groups having free access to the corridors of political power to play hardball with India, riding the horse of innovation and pooh-poohing patients’ interests.

Playing hardball:

The question therefore arises, would India tactfully reciprocate playing hardball or give in to the pressure of trade sanctions under ‘Priority Foreign Country’ categorization of the United States?

I reckon India would not give in. To state more emphatically, India just cannot give in now, under any circumstances.

Come May 16, 2014, the new Union Government of India would almost be ready take its position on the saddle. Thereafter, even if it prefers to give in to intense US political pressure just to avoid trade sanctions, in all practicality that would virtually be a non-starter. This is because, the new Government would unlikely to be in a position to garner enough votes in the Parliament to amend the section (3d), ignoring the general sentiment on this important public health related issue and political compulsions of many of its constituents on the subject.

Would America go to WTO?

Would the United States of America ultimately complain against India in the multilateral forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO) for alleged violation of the TRIPS Agreement? That is exactly the question that many people are asking today.

In this context it is worth noting, India has reiterated time and again that Indian Patents Act 2005 is in full compliance of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration of 2001.

Since, no country has complained to WTO against India on this issue, as yet, despite so much of posturing and the noise generated the world over, it appears improbable that the US would now do so, though Big Pharma would continue playing hardball raising the same old bogey of protection of ‘innovation’ in a much higher pitch, cleverly camouflaging its hardcore vested commercial interests.

What happens, if WTO decides in favor of India?

In the multilateral forum, if the WTO decides in favor of India, there is much to loose for Big Pharma.

In that scenario, the Indian example would encourage a large number of countries to enact similar model of Patents Act fully complying with the TRIPS agreement, as vetted by the WTO.

Some has termed it as a refreshingly fresh “Alternative Model of Patent Law’, going away from the dominant IP model as is being propagated by the US.

As I had indicated in the past, countries like the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favoring this alternative model that favors protection of Intellectual Property (IP) and at the same time promotes access to new inventions to a large majority of the global population.

Conclusion:

I reckon, Big Pharma’s playing hardball with India, riding the horse of ‘innovation’, could ultimately boomerang.

The Government of India, irrespective of any political color, lineage or creed, is unlikely to be bullied by Big Pharma constituents any time soon.

More importantly, even in a worse case scenario, the Government would be incapable of getting the section (3d) amended by the Indian Parliament garnering majority of the lawmakers’ support and going against strong political and public voices on this issue.

Nevertheless, Big pharma would continue to wish it to happen… and that drags me to the good old saying:

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: 3d

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Dawns A New Era: Regenerative Medicine For Degenerative Disease

At The Indian IPR Front: ‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business

Indian Patents Act To Prevail Undiluted…Finally

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’