Tag Archives: CL

‘Data Protection’: Needs A Clear Direction…But Is It An IPR Issue?

Posted on by
Reply

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 critical impact on public health interest of a nation.

In several media reports as well, one can notice the interchangeable use of these two terms. It is especially happening when the reports are speculating whether or not the Government of India is considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’/ ‘Data Protection’ along with ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

Tracking this development, the last week, I wrote about ‘Patent Linkage’. In this article, I shall dwell on the same area, but from ‘Data Exclusivity’/ ‘Data Protection’ perspective.

A brief overview:

Close to a decade ago, Government of India constituted ‘Satwant Reddy Committee’ to recommend a direction that India should follow on ‘Data Protection’ in the country involving pharmaceutical and agricultural products.

In 2007 the Committee submitted its report recommending ‘Data Protection’ in the country to be introduced for pharma products in a calibrated manner. However, the report did not specify a timeline for its implementation.

Interestingly, even this committee did not differentiate between the terminologies ‘Data Protection’ and ‘Data Exclusivity, as we now see in the first draft of the ‘National IPR Policy.’

According to available reports, after due deliberation, the erstwhile Government decided not to take any action on the committee’s recommendations for ‘Data Protection’ in India.

Difference between ‘Data Protection’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’:

In an article published in ipHandbook, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift with a great deal of experience in the U.K. Department of International Development (DFID) and 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.

Arguments in favor of ‘Data Exclusivity’:

International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Geneva, in its website argues in favor of ‘Data Exclusivity’ as follows:

- Health authorities require, as part of a submission for a marketing authorization, that proprietary information be disclosed in order to ensure public health and patient safety.

- The innovator assumes the entire risk for the generation of the data, what requires expensive and lengthy clinical trials.

- ‘Data Exclusivity’ is necessary to provide a measure of certainty to the innovator that they will be provided with a period of protection for their efforts of testing a drug.

- Patents and ‘Data Exclusivity’ are different concepts, protect different subject matter, arise from different efforts, and have different legal effects over different time periods

Arguments suspecting the intent of ‘Data Exclusivity’:

The above paper of Charles Clift highlights the following on DE:

- The effect of DE is to prevent entry of generic competitors, independent of the patent status of the product in question.

- DE law, wherever applicable, prevents generic manufacturers from using innovators’ test data, though it would allow the drug regulator to analyze this data prior to market approval.

- Even if the patent period has expired or there is no patent on a product, DE will act independently to delay the generic entry until the period of DE is over.

- In that way DE compensates innovators for delayed market entry and concomitant loss of potential profits.

- DE is a much stronger right than a patent, mainly because, unlike patent law, there is no exceptions or flexibilities that allow the governments to provide the equivalent of Compulsory License (CL).

- DE acts as a barrier to CL of a patent on the same product by preventing marketing approval for a CL.

TRIPS Agreement talks about DP, but not DE:

Article 39 of TRIPS Agreement on “Protection of Undisclosed Information” contains a general clause on the obligations of the members of the WTO, where Article 39.3 specifies three obligations for its member countries as follows:

- To protect data on New Chemical Entities (NCE), the collection of which involves considerable effort, against unfair commercial use.

- To protect these data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public

- To protect such data against disclosure, unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use

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 TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS Plus’.

What is ‘TRIPS Plus’?

The ‘TRIPS-Plus’ concept would usually encompass all those activities, which are aimed at increasing the level of IP protection for the right holders, much beyond what is required for conformance of TRIPS Agreement by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Some section of the civil society nurtures a view that ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could significantly jeopardize the ability, especially, of developing countries to protect the public health interest adequately.

Some common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions:

Common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could include:

- Extension of the patent term beyond usual twenty-year period

- Introduction of provisions, which could restrict the use of CL

- Delaying the entry of generics

Is ‘Data Protection’ an IPR issue?

In my view, the issue of ‘Data Protection’ is more a drug regulatory than an IPR related subject and should be treated as such. This is because ‘Data Protection’ is more related to the ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act’ of India rather than the ‘Patents Act 2005′.

Thus, it is quite intriguing to make out why ‘Data Protection’, which will be governed by ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act’, is featuring in the IPR Policy of the country.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

After jettisoning the ‘Satwant Committee Report’ on ‘Data Protection’, the Government was in no mood, until recently, to discuss anything about DP and DE, despite intense pressure from the pharma MNC lobby in India. However, the issue first resurfaced during EU-FTA negotiation, when India rejected these provisions outright and unambiguously.

However, the ghost started haunting India, yet again, when the US Government started flexing its muscle on this issue, at the behest of the American pharma companies.

Although DP is a drug regulatory issue, curiously, it features in the draft National IPR Policy. Even there, the subject has taken an interesting turn, when in the first draft of ‘National IPR Policy’ of India, the six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan clearly recommended “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

In my opinion this is indeed a very pragmatic recommendation. It deserves support from all concerned so that the profound intent continues to feature in the final IPR Policy of India, to protect public health interest of the nation.

Just like ‘Patent Linkage’, as I discussed in my last week’s article, finding a middle ground to put ‘Data Protection’ in place through administrative measures, without making any amendments either in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act or in the Patents Act of the country, seems to be desirable and very much possible, as well.

However, the very thought of considering ‘Data Exclusivity’ in India, in my view, should prompt a clear ‘No…No’ response from the present Government of India.

This is mainly because, besides all other reasons as mentioned above, even if the patent period for a molecule has expired or there is no patent on a product, DE will act independently to delay the generic entry until the period of ‘Data Exclusivity’ gets over.

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.

 

What President Obama And Prime Minister Modi Discussed On IPR And Healthcare In India

Posted on by
Reply

During the recent visit of the US President Barack Obama to India from January 25-27, 2015, both the domestic and international media was abuzz with the speculation, whether or not India would concede some ground to America on the prevailing, generally considered, well balanced patent regime in India.

Many expected that the American delegation would succeed in getting some specific assurances from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to follow the line of the US style Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India, which would help the American pharma companies to maximize their financial returns in the country.

The assurances from India were expected mainly in areas involving grant of patents even to those pharma products, that do not quality for the same under section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, dilution of provisions for Compulsory License (CL) and creation of a new provision for Data Exclusivity in the country, besides a few others.

As everyone noticed, just before the US President’s visit, interested groups both in India and also from abroad intensified lobbying and released op-eds to create pressure on the Indian negotiators, in general, and the Prime Minister Modi in particular.

Terming the Indian Patents Act weak, the lobby groups turned the Indian IPR regime on its head. Playing the role of India’s benefactor, they re-packaged their shrill collective voice into pontificating words while giving interviews to the Indian media by saying: “A strong IPR regime could allow the country (India) to make a major contribution to tackling health challenges, both domestically and around the world.”

Additional US interest in Indian IP regime from TPP perspective:

Exemplary demonstration of India’s resistance to intense external pressure, time and again, for dilution of the IP regime in the country, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general. This trend now gets reflected even among some of the members of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty.

According to reports, TPP members, such as, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement. Besides America, other members of the TPP are Australia, Japan and New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

TPP negotiations are generally expected to follow the overall framework of American laws. However, according to media reports, based on the leaked draft of the TPP, the data exclusivity period for biologic medicines has already been negotiated down to 7 years, from 12 years under the US Affordable Care Act.

However, on January 27, 2015, US Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee reportedly said that he would oppose Senate approval of the TPP, if it does not provide 12 years of patent protection for biologics.

The same day, at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, US Trade Representative Mike Froman reportedly reiterated, “The US is insisting on 12 years of IP protections, even though the Obama administration’s budget calls for 7-year exclusivity on biologic meds.”

It is also worth noting that Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz in an op-ed titled, “Don’t Trade Away Our Health”, published in The New York Times of January 30, 2015 commented as follows:

“TPP could block cheaper generic drugs from the market. Big Pharma’s profits would rise, at the expense of the health of patients and the budgets of consumers and governments.”

Clicking on this short video clip you will be able watch another similar viewpoint on TPP, its general perspective and what it encompasses.

Thus, the closely guarded ‘turf war’ on TPP is now heating up, making negotiations increasingly tougher to arrive at a consensus on the IP rules that would be applicable to pharmaceutical products in this trade initiative. Consequently, the evolving scenario has prompted the interested groups to keenly follow, with hopes, the outcome of Presidents Obama’s recent visit to India, especially in the pharma IP areas. This is because, many emerging economies of the world are now appreciative of the prevailing well-balanced patent regime in India.

After the 12-nation TPP agreement comes into force, probably following the lines of the US IP laws, it is quite possible that India may sometime in future would prefer to be a part of this agreement for greater trade facilitation, as the country comes closer to America…Who knows?

However, in that case the bottomline is, India would have to amend relevant provisions of its Patents Act in conformance with the requirements of mainly the US pharmaceutical companies and the IP laws prevailing in America, as this will be necessary to become a new member of this treaty.

Discussion in the summit meeting:

According to the Joint Statement on the summit meeting released by the White House, President Obama and Prime Minister Modi discussed the following subjects related to IPR and Healthcare in India, as detailed below:

  • Reaffirmed the importance of providing transparent and predictable policy environments for fostering innovation.  Both countries reiterated their interest in sharing information and best practices on IPR issues, and reaffirmed their commitment to stakeholders’ consultations on policy matters concerning intellectual property protection.
  • Reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and announced specific actions at home and abroad to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including a CDC-Ministry of Health Ebola and GHSA preparedness training, expansion of the India Epidemic Intelligence Service, and development of a roadmap to achieve the objectives of the GHSA within three years.
  • Committed to multi-sectoral actions countering the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and cooperation in training of health workers in preparedness for infectious disease threats. The Leaders agreed to focus science and technology partnerships on countering antibiotic resistant bacteria and promoting the availability, efficacy and quality of therapeutics.
  • Welcomed further progress in promoting bilateral cooperation on cancer research, prevention, control, and management and agreed to continue to strengthen the engagement between the CDC and India’s National Centre for Disease Control.
  • Welcomed the upcoming completion of an Environmental Health, Occupational Health and Injury Prevention and Control MoU between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Indian Council for Medical Research to further collaborative efforts to improve the health and welfare of both countries’ citizens.
  • Agreed to expand the India-U.S. Health Initiative into a Healthcare Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to further strengthen bilateral collaboration in health sectors including through capacity building initiatives and by exploring new areas, including affordable healthcare, cost saving mechanisms, distribution barriers, patent quality, health services information technology, and complementary and traditional medicine.
  • Pledged to encourage dialogue between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Indian counterparts on traditional medicine.
  • Pledged to strengthen collaboration, dialogue, and cooperation between the regulatory authorities of the two countries to ensure safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceuticals, including generic medicines.
  • Agreed to accelerate joint leadership of the global Call to Action to end preventable deaths among mothers and children through a third meeting of the 24 participating countries in India in June 2015.  As host, India will showcase the power of new partnerships, innovations and systems to more effectively deliver life-saving interventions.
  • Also lauded the highly successful collaboration on a locally produced vaccine against rotavirus, which will save the lives of an estimated 80,000 children each year in India alone, and pledged to strengthen the cooperation in health research and capacity building through a new phase of the India-U.S. Vaccine Action Program.

As stated earlier, during this summit meeting, US lobbyists were reportedly nurturing a hope that Prime Minister Modi would eventually agree, at least in principle, to jettison section 3(d) on the patentability criteria enshrined in the Indian Patents Act 2005 and significantly water down the country’s Compulsory License (CL) provisions. This expectation increased, when the US President made the investment promise of U$4 billion in India.

That said, from the above points of discussion in the joint statement, it appears that no breakthrough on the part of the US was achieved especially in the IPR space, during the summit.

However, in other areas of bilateral healthcare co-operation, such as, science and technology partnerships in countering antibiotic resistant bacteria; cancer research and traditional medicines; the reaffirmations made by the two leaders are encouraging.

US pressure on IP to continue:

Going by India’s reaffirmation during the summit meeting of its commitment to consultations with America on policy matters related to IPR protection and US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015, it is construed by the IP activists that the kettle has possibly started boiling:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns,”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents,”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area,”

Media reports also indicate that US pressure on IPR would continue, as they highlight:

“Threatened by free trade of high-quality and affordable medicines, US-based pharmaceutical companies and politicians friendly with the industry are using prominently placed op-eds, large advertisements on Washington, D.C. buses, and letters to President Obama to spread false information -claiming India’s rules are not legal or discourage innovation. The companies have been threatening to withhold investment if India does not adopt weaker patent laws that would extend pharmaceutical monopolies and stymie the country’s generic industry.”

I discussed some of these issues in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New National IPR Policy of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

Irrespective of whatever the US-India Joint Statement says on IPR, some experts do apprehend that Indian Government may now wilt under continuous intense pressure from the American Government. This is mainly because, India’s Commerce and Industry’s Minister has reportedly sought America’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

On this score, let me hasten to add that it may not be prudent to read too much into it, as seeking stakeholders’ comments on such matter is a practice that India has been following since long on various issues and policies.

However, at the same time, other groups of experts nurture a quite different viewpoint. They are confident that the nationalist Modi Government, under no circumstances would concede its long nurtured strategic ground on IPR to the US power play.

Emerging countries across the globe are keenly watching this intense game of  ‘Power Chess’, as they plan to emulate India in many of the pharmaceutical IP areas to uphold the public health interest, providing affordable healthcare to all.

These are still early days. Thus, in my view, on January 25, 2015, what President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed on the IPR regime in India may not be as important as what they would eventually decide to agree, disagree or agree to disagree in this area, moving on from here.

Only time would prove…not just who is right, that is pretty obvious to many, but who wilts at the end of the day…and more importantly, why?

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.

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Whether under pressure or not, is hardly of any relevance now. What is relevant today is the fact that the new Indian Government, almost in a record time of just around two months, has been able to release a high quality first draft of an important national policy for public discourse.

In October 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India and taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders has now been scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

The proposed ‘Mission Statement’ as stated in the draft “National IPR Policy” is:

“To establish a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and to accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.”

Specifying its vision, mission and objectives, the draft policy suggests adopting a catchy national slogan to increase IP awareness: ‘Creative India; Innovative India’ and integrating IP with “Smart cities”, “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns of the new Government.

The ‘Think Tank’ dwells on the following seven areas:

  • IP Awareness and Promotion
  • Creation of IP
  • Legal and Legislative Framework
  • IP Administration and Management
  • Commercialization of IP
  • Enforcement and Adjudication
  • Human Capital Development

In the policy document, the ‘Think Tank’ has discussed all the above seven areas in detail. However, putting all these in a nutshell, I shall highlight only three of those important areas.

1. To encourage IP, the ‘Think Tank’ proposes to provide statutory incentives, like tax benefits linked to IP creation, for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization.

2. For speedy redressal of patent related disputes, specialized patent benches in the high courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras have been mooted. The draft also proposes creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are already located and at least one designated IP court at the district level.

3. The draft concludes by highlighting that a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IP Policy, linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of overall working of the National IP Policy and quantification of the results achieved during the period have also been suggested, along with a major review of the policy after 3 years.

Although the National IPR policy cuts across the entire industrial spectrum and domains, in this article I shall deliberate on it solely from the pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Stakeholders’ keen interest in the National IPR Policy – Key reasons:

Despite full support of the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the angst of the pharma MNCs on the well-balanced product patent regime in India has been simmering since its very inception, way back in 2005.

A chronicle of recent events, besides the seven objectives of the IPR policy as enumerated above, created fresh general inquisitiveness on how would this new policy impact the current pharmaceutical patent regime of India, both in favor and also against.

Here below are examples of some of those events:

  • At a Congressional hearing of the United States in July 2013, a Congressman reportedly expressed his anger and called for taking actions against India by saying:

“Like all of you, my blood boils, when I hear that India is revoking and denying patents and granting compulsory licenses for cancer treatments or adopting local content requirements.”

This short video clipping captures the tone and mood of one such hearing of the US lawmakers.

  • On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.
  • It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.
  • “India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

-       India’s patentability requirements are (allegedly) in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.

-       Non-availability of regulatory data protection

-       Non-availability of patent term restoration

-       The use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations.

Based on this report, US Chamber of Commerce urged USTR to classify India as a “Priority Foreign Country”, a terminology reserved for the worst IP offenders, which could lead to trade sanctions.

  • In the midst of all these, international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

  • Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.
  • In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘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 by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.
  • However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

A perspective of National IPR Policy in view of Pharma MNCs’ concerns:

I shall now focus on four key areas of concern/allegations against India on IPR and in those specific areas what has the draft National IPR Policy enumerated.

- Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: Just last week (January 15, 2015), Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down, despite prior licensing agreements of Gilead in India, fetching huge relief to a large number of patients suffering from Hepatitis C Virus, in the country.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

- Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

- Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

- Concern 4: “Non-availability of patent term restoration, patent linkage, use of compulsory licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations”.

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Conclusion: 

Overall, the first draft of the outcome-based model of the National IPR Policy appears to me as fair and balanced, especially considering its approach to the evolving IPR regime within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The draft policy though touches upon the ‘Utility Model’, intriguingly does not deliberate on ‘Open Source Innovation’ or ‘Open Innovation’.

Be that as it may, the suggested pathway for IPR in India seems to be clear, unambiguous, and transparent. The draft policy understandably has not taken any extreme stance on any aspect of the IP. Nor does it succumb to high voltage power play of the United States and its allies in the IPR space, which, if considered, could go against the public health interest.

It is heartening to note, a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IPR Policy, which will be linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and the results achieved will also be undertaken. A major review of the policy will be done after 3 years.

That said, pharma MNCs in general, don’t seem to quite agree with this draft policy probably based purely on commercial considerations, shorn of public health interest. It is quite evident, when a senior lobbyist of a powerful American pharma lobby group reportedly commented to Indian media on the draft National IPR Policy as follows:

“Real progress will only be achieved when India demonstrates through policy change that it does indeed value the importance of intellectual property, especially for the innovative treatments and cures of today and tomorrow”.

It appears, India continues to hold its stated ground on IPR with clearly enunciated policy statements. On the other hand MNCs don’t stop playing hardball either. Though these are still early days, the question that floats on the top of mind: Who would blink first?…India? Do you reckon so?

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.

 

Pharma & Healthcare: Where The Healers Turn Looters?

Posted on by
Reply

Two news reports of the last week, though no longer shocking, made me think exactly the same way as the headline of this article epitomizes.

These reports are not just two isolated instances, but an integral part of a similar chain of events that I partly addressed in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Much Beyond Profit Making?” of November 10, 2014.

With the fist clenching media reports of just the last week, I shall try to dwell upon that in absence of good governance how two of the greatest healers and the medical care givers in the arena of healthcare – the doctors and the hospitals, are being increasingly perceived by the common citizens as nothing less than looters.

The doctors:

A November 21, 2014 report highlights that the Medical Council of India (MCI) has summoned over three hundred doctors from various parts of India, based on an anonymous complaint, for taking lakhs of rupees as bribes from an Ahmedabad based pharmaceutical company. All those 300 doctors have been told to bring copies of their Income Tax returns and bank statements.

Just a year ago, in September 2013, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner reportedly received a letter alleging that doctors were taking bribes from Pharma companies. The complaint was forwarded to the Health ministry. The MCI took over the case in December 2013 and formed a subcommittee to investigate the doctors.

The complaint details that the Ahmedabad-based pharma company has been paying to the doctors not just huge cash, but also gifting them cars and flats, besides sponsoring foreign trips for the family.

In return, the involved doctors are allegedly prescribing that Ahmedabad based pharma company’s products that are priced 15 to 30 percent higher than those of well-established other pharma players.

In addition, according to reports, the doctors would also air on the Television sets placed at their respective clinics, advertisements of the pharma company products against hefty cash or equivalent in kind.

Although, the allegations of unholy nexus between pharma players and the doctors are continuity of a good old saga, the risk taking incentives that it provides to the wrong doers are very significant. The anonymous letter alleged that the concerned pharma company’s profit zoomed from zero to Rs. 400 Crore in a period of just 5 years.

According to available reports, the MCI has already questioned 166 doctors, out of which 7 are senior doctors from Maharashtra, including 3 physicians from Mumbai.

The hospital:

Another report on the subject that appeared yesterday is related to overcharging for an oncology medicine of Novartis – Sandostatin LAR, over the last nine months by the well-known Tata Memorial Hospital of Mumbai.

According to the report, even when Novartis revised the price of Sandostatin LAR from Rs. 65,499 for a 20mg vial to Rs 32,000 during Oct-Dec 2013 and the chemists in the hospital’s vicinity were selling the same vial for Rs 32,000, Tata Memorial continued to sell it at Rs 48,296.

The report also states that patients could have saved much more, if the hospital had prescribed an Octreotide generic of the same strength, Octride Depot 20mg by Sun Pharma with an MRP of Rs 17,800 is sold at Tata Memorial for Rs 12,157, instead of Sandostatin LAR 20mg.

However, the newspaper claims, “DNA was the first to report about the price disparity at the hospital on Nov 5. Tata Memorial Hospital has decided to reimburse cancer patients who were overcharged for a Novartis-branded oncology medicine over the last nine months.”

Interestingly, we get to know only about a few of such instances, only when these are reported either anonymously or by some employees or through rare impartial investigative journalism of international standard.

Treatment of dreaded diseases like Cancer also not spared:

The above hospital case assumes immense importance, as it is related to a dreaded disease and an expensive cancer drug. In real every day life, many such cases of various hues and colors are taking place in India incognito, at the cost of patients.

A scary scenario:

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 Bn. by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020.

Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 Bn. of the global pharmaceutical sales.

High incidence of cancer in India:

A major report published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that in India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

The Lancet Oncology study showed, while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost that is out of reach for millions of Indians.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Cancer drug price – a global issue to address:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement: “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”

In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.

Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

Developments in India:

India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.

I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control. These prices have already in force.

Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports.

Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.Herceptin,

Hence, affordable pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure point, as it just happened yet again.

The government to intervene again:

According to a media report of the last week, the new government in India is planning to control prices of anti-cancer drugs to address this critical issue.

As the current National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) does not include many important anti-cancer medication, Tata Memorial Centre of Mumbai has recommended to the government that oncology drugs, such as Trastuzumab, Erlotinib, Irinotecan, Lenalidomide, Capecitabine, All Trans Retinoic Acid (ATRA), Bendamustine, Rituximab, Temozolomide (TMZ), Zoledronic acid, Megestrol acetate and Letrozole, should be added to the NLEM.

As a first step towards this direction the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has invited comments on the same from the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders to bring these drugs under price control.

Quoting NPPA the report states, “the recommendations are based on factors such as the ability of the drug to improve the overall survival chances of the patient. The other factors include higher priority to drugs that have the potential to cure a fraction of patients versus those that have been proven to only prolong lives; the number of patients potentially impacted in India based on data from population based cancer registries of the National Cancer Registry Program; the non-availability of alternative medications of the same or other pharmacological class that can act as a reasonable ‘substitute’; and price of the drug to patients and the differential in price between various brands.”

Although this is a welcome move to most of the patients, the pharma industry would certainly not be happy with this development, because of very obvious reasons and is expected to strongly oppose this initiative of the government. Let us wait and watch how this scenario unfolds further.

Conclusion:

In pursuit of the Eldorado to generate more and more wealth, shorn of least concerns for majority of patients, quite a few companies are not sparing even the dreaded diseases, such as cancer, pushing many patients to abject poverty, if not untimely death.

Increasingly, many healthcare players across the world are reportedly being forced to pay heavily for ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments. Unfortunately, no such steps are being taken in India, not just yet.

At least on paper, for errant doctors and hospitals there is MCI to take prompt remedial measures. For implementation of Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) there is NPPA, though effectiveness of these two seemingly powerful bodies are far from the expectations of the stakeholders, occasional reported jingoism notwithstanding.

Currently in India, there are no legally binding ‘codes of pharma marketing practices’ in place. Even the Department of Pharmaceutical does not seem to have any legal jurisdiction for taking penal action against the errant pharma players for marketing malpractices or misdemeanor.

In this chaotic scenario, is it not quite challenging to fathom how would the government possibly discourage any healthcare or pharma player from turning looter instead of playing the expected role of a healer, ensuring beyond doubt that there is no wolf in sheep’s clothing?

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.

 

 

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

By a letter dated October 21, 2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, the domestic pharma major Cipla has sought for the revocation of five patents of Novartis AG’s respiratory drug Indacaterol (Onbrez) in India, under Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Launch of a generic equivalent:

Cipla also announced its decision to launch shortly a generic equivalent of Indacaterol with the brand name Unibrez Rotacaps to satisfy the unfulfilled requirement of the new drug in India.

The Maximum Retail Price for a strip of 10 capsules of Unibrez Rotacaps 150 mcg would cost Rs.130.00 to patients against the equivalent strength of Onbrez of Novartis costing Rs.677.00, which is 420 percent more expensive than the price at which Cipla would sell this drug.

What do the Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act say?

- Section 66 of the Indian Patents Act:

“66. Revocation of patent in public interest: Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State of generally prejudicial to the public, if any, after giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard, make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette and thereupon the patent shall be deemed to be revoked.”

- Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act:

“92. Special provision for compulsory licenses: (1) If the Central Government is satisfied, in respect of any patent in force in circumstances of national emergency or in circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non- commercial use, that it is necessary that compulsory licenses should be granted at any time after the sealing thereof to work the invention, it may make a declaration to that effect, by notification in the Official Gazette, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say –

(i) The Controller shall on application made at any time after the notification by any person interested, grant to the applicant a license under the patent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(ii) In settling the terms and conditions of a license granted under this section, the Controller shall endeavor to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights.

(2) The provisions of sections 83, 87, 88, 89 and 90 shall apply in relation to the grant of licenses under this section as they apply in relation to the grant of licenses under section 84.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where the Controller is satisfied on consideration of the application referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (1) that it is necessary in –

(i) A circumstance of national emergency; or

(ii) A circumstance of extreme urgency; or

(iii) A case of public non- commercial use, which may arise or is required, as the case may be, including public health crises, relating to Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, Human Immuno Deficiency Virus, tuberculosis, malaria or other epidemics, he shall not apply any procedure specified in section 87 in relation to that application for grant of license under this section:

Provided that the Controller shall, as soon as may be practicable, inform the patentee of the patent relating to the application for such non-application of section 87.”

Two key reasons:

Anchored on the above two sections of the Indian Patents Act, the two key reasons cited by Cipla for revocation of five patents granted to Indacaterol of Novartis AG are, very briefly, as follows:

Lack of inventive steps and ‘evergreening’ of patents:

The exclusivity given to five patents of Indacaterol is contrary to law due to lack of inventive step, being obvious inventions. Novartis allegedly has indulged in ‘evergreening’ with a number of patents to extend monopoly of the drug much beyond the term of the first patent. Indian law expressly bars ‘evergreening’ as it impedes drug access to a large majority of the patients.

Lack of working of the patents:

Cipla also claimed lack of “working” of those patents in the country, as a mere 0.03 percent of the drug requirement is currently being fulfilled in India. This leaves the percentage of inadequacy in the requirement of the drug per year at a staggering number of around 99.97 percent.

With supporting details, Cipla has stated in its letter that Indacaterol under the brand name Onbrez is imported by Novartis through its licensee Lupin Pharma only. It further pointed out that the Indian law requires all patents to be “worked” within the territory of India.

While adequate quantity of imports may qualify as working, the present case is one in which the patents in question have not been worked through imports of adequate quantity of the drug. Thus reasonable requirements of the public have not been fulfilled, at all.

Abysmally low drug access to Indian patients:

According to Cipla, when there has been a necessity for the availability of Indacaterol to a much larger number of patients afflicted by COPD, that has assumed magnitude of an epidemic, just a miniscule of 0.03 percent of the total drug requirement is currently being met in the country. In 2013, the import of Indacaterol, as reportedly declared in Form 27 by Novartis to the Patent office, was just 53,844 units, which could meet this drug requirement at best of only 4,500 out of 15 million patients, annually.

Despite accepted drug benefits, the doctors are unable to adequately prescribe Indacaterol in India, due to low quantity of the drug import for the public.

Thus, while announcing the launch of cheaper generic equivalents of the drug, Cipla emphasized that its Unibrez Rotacaps would fulfill the requirements of the public, meet public health interest and at the same time increase access to this medicine, with an affordable alternative, for a large number of patients.

Increasing incidence of COPD in India:

In its application to the DIPP, Cipla underscored that Indacaterol is one of the preferred medications to treat widely prevalent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that has reached the magnitude of an epidemic in India with about 15 million Indians afflicted with the ailment.

COPD is now among the top ten causes of disease burden in India. According to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the overall prevalence rates of COPD in India are 5.0 and 3.2 percent respectively in men and women of and over 35 years of age. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that COPD is the cause of death of more people than HIV-AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis all put together in the South East Asian Region.

Cipla quoted an Indian Study on “Epidemiology of Asthma, Respiratory Symptoms and Chronic Bronchitis in Adults (INSEARCH)”, which estimated that about 7 percent of deaths annually are a result of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in India.

Importance of Indacaterol in COPD treatment:

Cipla reiterated that Indacaterol is the preferred drug over other beta adrenoceptor agonists, as it has to be consumed only once a day. Moreover, it has a higher potency and prolonged effect as compared to other beta adrenoceptor agonists.

Strong arguments make the case interesting:

Though appropriate legal authorities would take a final call on the subject, prima facie, Cipla seems to have a strong case resting on the pillars of Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Since, Cipla has already gone ahead and announced the launch of cheaper generic equivalent of Indacaterol in India, it gives a sense about the company’s confidence in its argument against five valid patents of Novartis on this drug.

On the other hand, one may also justifiably say that Cipla should have waited for the final verdict of the court of law on the validity of five Indacaterol patents in India, before deciding to actually launch a generic version of the patented drug.

It is worth noting that in 2013, Novartis lost a legal battle related to patent grant for its anti-leukemia drug Glivec in the Supreme Court of India. The case lasted over seven years in various courts of law. Interestingly, Cipla had followed similar course of action in the Glivec case too, and had won the case decisively.

‘Form 27’ and the Indian Patent office (IPO):

At this stage it is worth noting, a ‘Public Notice’ dated December 24, 2009 was issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all ‘Patentees and Licensees’ to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003.

The notice also drew attention to penalty provisions in the Patents Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.

The information sought by the IPO in ‘Form 27’ can be summarized as follows:

A. The reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

  • The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
  • The details to be provided, if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
  • A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

The ‘Public Notice’ also indicated that:

• A fine of up to (US$ 25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.

• And providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

The important point to ponder now is, if Cipla’s allegation is correct, what has been the IPO doing with the ‘Form 27’ information to uphold the spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005, thus far?

Conclusion:

For various reasons, it would now be interesting to follow, how does the IPO deal with this case right from here. In any case, information provided through ‘Form 27’ cannot remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act (RTI)’ will help ferret more such details out in the open.

As the ‘Moment of Truth’ unfolds in this case, one would be quite curious to fathom how the strong voices against ‘non-working of patents’ and ‘evergreening’ drive home their arguments before the court of justice.

On the other hand, the global innovator companies, their highly paid lobby groups and the USTR are expected to exert tremendous pressure on the Indian Government to protect the global pharma business interests in India, come what may. All these would indeed create a potboiler, as expected by many.

In this complex scenario, striking a right balance between rewarding genuine innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population in the country, on the other, would not be an enviable task for the Indian Government.

As the juggernaut of conflicting interest moves on, many would keenly await for a glimpse of ‘the moment of truth’ based on the judicial interpretation of ‘evergreening’ and ‘working of patents’, for this case in particular.

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.

 

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on by
Reply

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment  . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

  • Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
  • If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is   doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy 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 knowhow 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 reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

  • The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
  • Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
  • Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

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.

Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?

Posted on by
Reply

I discussed in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?” of October 6, 2014 that on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

Special 301 Report and OCR – A brief Background:

According to the Office of USTR, Section 182 of the US Trade Act requires USTR to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IPR or deny fair and equitable market access to US persons who rely on Intellectual Property (IP) protection. The provisions of Section 182 are commonly referred to as the “Special 301” provisions of the US Trade Act.

Those countries that have the ‘most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant US products’ are to be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. In addition, USTR has created a “Priority Watch List” and a “Watch List” under Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.

In the 2014 Special 301 Report, USTR placed India on the Priority Watch List and noted that it would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern.

An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on IPR issues of concern and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy such issues.

For the purpose of the OCR of India, USTR had requested written submissions from the public concerning information, views, acts, policies, or practices relevant to evaluating the Government of India’s engagement on IPR issues of concern, in particular those identified in the 2014 Special 301 Report.

The Deadlines for written submissions were as follows:

Friday, October 31, 2014 - Deadline for the public, except foreign governments, to submit written comments.

Friday, November 7, 2014 - Deadline for foreign governments to submit written comments.

India’s earlier response to 2014 Special 301 Report:

On this report, India had responded earlier by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement. The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The issue was raised during PM’s US visit:

According to media reports, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his visit to America last month, had faced power packed protests against the drug patent regime in India from both the US drug industry and also the federal government.

The Indo-US joint statement addresses remedial measures:

In view of this concern, Indo-US high-level working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries. TPF has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after the talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama captures the essence of it as follows:

“Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the TPF.”

Unilateral measures resurface within days after PM’s return from the US:

Almost immediately after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s return from the US, USTR ‘s fresh offensive with OCR against India’s IP regime, could have an adverse impact on the proposed bilateral dialogue with Washington on this issue.

However, dismissing this unilateral action of America, the Union Commerce Ministry, has reiterated the country’s stand, yet again, as follows:

“As far as we are concerned, all our laws and rules are compliant with our commitments at WTO. A country can’t judge India’s policies using its own yardsticks when there is a multilateral agreement.”

As many would know that several times in the past, India has unambiguously articulated, it may explore the available option of approaching the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the unilateral moves and actions by the US on IPR related issues, as IPR policies require to be discussed in the multilateral forum, such as WTO.

A fresh hurdle in the normalization process:

Many see the latest move of USTR with OCR as a fresh hurdle in the normalization process of a frosty trade and economic relationship between the two countries. More so, when it comes almost immediately after a clear agreement inked between Prime Minister Modi and President Obama in favor of a bilateral engagement on IPR related policies and issues. Let me hasten to add, USTR has now clarified, “The OCR will not revisit India’s designation on the 2014 Priority Watch List.”

What does US want?

The initiatives taken by the USTR, no doubt, are in conformance to the US law, as it requires to identify and prepare a list of trade barriers in the countries with whom the US has trade relations, and with a clear focus on IPR related issues.

Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India, in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too.

It is pretty clear now that to resolve all IP related bilateral issues, the United States wants the Indian Patents Act to be amended as an exact replica of what the American lawmakers have enacted in their country, including evergreening of patents and no compulsory licensing unless there is a national disaster or emergency. They require it, irrespective of whatever happens as a result of lack of access to these new drugs for a vast majority of Indian patients.

Thus, it is understandable, why the Indian government is not surrendering to persistent American bullying.

A series of decisions taken by the Union government of India on both patents and drug pricing is a demonstration of its sincere endeavor to increase access to drugs, as less than 15 percent of 1.2 billion people of the country are currently covered by some sort of health insurance.

Global healthcare NGOs strongly reacted:

The Doctors Without Borders’ (MSF) Access Campaign articulated, “India’s production of affordable medicines is a vital life-line for MSF’s medical humanitarian operations and millions of people in the developing countries.”

It further added, “India’s patent law and practices are favorable to public health, were put in place through a democratic legislative process, and are in line with international trade and intellectual property rules… Every country has the right to set policies that balance private business interests with public health needs.”

MSF reportedly warned Prime Minister Modi that US officials and Big Pharma would continue to try to lobby and pressurize him over India’s current patent regime and urged him, “Don’t back down on drug patents”.

“The world can’t afford to see India’s pharmacy shut down by US commercial interests,” MSF reiterated.

Under US bullying, is India developing cold feet?

In the midst of all these, an international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

Quoting an Indian media report, the above international publication elaborated, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, has delayed a decision on whether to grant a Compulsory License (CL) for Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) leukemia drug Sprycel. DIPP has sent a letter to the Health Ministry, questioning its rationale for saying there was a “national emergency” when chronic myeloid leukemia affects only 0.001% of the population. The letter asked how much the government is spending on the drug, and pointed out that there is no indication of a growing trend in the disease.

This Indian report commented, if the DIPP had agreed to issue a CL for Sprycel on the recommendation of the Union Ministry of Health, it would have ‘cheered’ the public health activists, but would have adversely impacted Indo-US relations that the Indian Prime Minister wants to avoid for business interests.

A Superficial and baseless interpretation:

In my view, the above comments of the Indian media, which was quoted by the international publications, may be construed as not just superficial, but baseless as well.

This is because, DIPP has become cautious on the CL issue not just now, but at least over a couple years from now (please read: Health Min’s compulsory license proposal hits DIPP hurdle, DIPP seeks details on 3 cancer drugs for compulsory licensing).

This is also not the first time that DIPP has sought clarification from the Ministry of Health on this subject.

Hence, in my view, this particular issue is being unnecessarily sensationalized, which has got nothing to do with hard facts and far from being related to the PM’s visit to America.

Conclusion:

The Indian Parliament amended the Patent Act in 2005, keeping the interest of public health right at the center. The Act provides adequate safeguards, including checks on evergreening of patents and broader framework for CL. All these conform to the Doha Declaration, which categorically states “TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent WTO members from taking measures to protect public health”.

For similar reasons, the Indian Act does not provide for ‘evergreening’ of patents. The Supreme Court judgment on Glivec is a case in point. If the Indian patent regime is weak and not TRIPS-compliant, the aggrieved country should approach the dispute settlement body of the WTO for necessary action. Thus, it is intriguing if the US, which took India to WTO over the latter’s solar power policy, is not doing the same for pharma IP. Is it really sure that the allegation that ‘the Indian Patent Act is non-TRIPS compliant’ is a robust one?

There is no denying that innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation and needs to be rewarded and protected. However, there is an equally important need to strike the right balance between patent regimes and safeguarding public health interest. In that sense, the Indian Patents Act occupies a position of strength, not weakness.

Considering all these, unilateral American measures against India for amendment of the country’s Patents Act in sync with theirs, ultimately would prove to be foolhardy.

The high-level working group on IP constituted as a part of the bilateral Trade Policy Forum (TPF), would be the right platform to sort out glitches in this arena, keeping Indian patients’ health interests at the center, and at the same time without jeopardizing justifiable business interests of the innovator companies.

Otherwise in all probability, India would continue to hold its justifiable ground on IPR steadfastly, remaining unfazed under pressures and provocations of any kind.

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.

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Posted on by
Reply

I had mentioned in my blog post of August 4, 2014, titled “Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment beyond reach of Most Indians” that in line with Gilead’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company would offer to license production of sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow, allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.

Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) is a once-a-day patented drug of Gilead for cure of chronic hepatitis C infection in most patients. Sovaldi has been priced at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet in the developed markets with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high even for many Americans and Europeans.

Gilead has also announced that it has set a minimum threshold price for Sovaldi of US$ 300 (Rs.18,000) a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost of Sovaldi per patient would be about US$ 900 (Rs.54,000) for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000 (Rs1.8 Crore). The company would offer this price to at least 80 countries.

Breaking-news in India:

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 reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

Another reason of Gilead’s selecting the Indian generic manufacturers could possibly be, that of much of the global supply of generic finished formulations is manufactured in India, especially for the developing countries of the world.

Patent status, broad strategy and the possibility:

It is worth noting here that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has not recognized Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent for the domestic market, just yet. This patent application has been opposed on the ground that it is an “old science, known compound.”

It is interesting that the Indian Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) and others, such as, Delhi Network of Positive People and Natco have reportedly opposed Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent application. If the patent for this drug does not come through, low priced generic versions of Sovaldi, without any licensing agreement with Gilead, would possibly capture the Indian market.

Conversely, due to unaffordable price of Sovaldi for most of the Hepatitis C patients, even if a patent is granted for this drug in India, the sword of Compulsory License (CL) on the ground of ‘reasonably affordable price’ looms large on this product.

To negate the possibility of any CL, in the best-case scenario of a patent grant, Gilead seems to have decided to enter into licensing agreement with seven other Indian generic manufacturers to create a sense of adequate competition in the market, as many believe.

However, if the IPO considers sofosbuvir not patentable in India, it would indeed be a double whammy for Gilead. Without any patent protection, all these in licensing agreements may also fall flat on the face, paving the way of greater access of much lesser priced generic sofosbuvir to patients, as indicated above.

The action replay:

If we flash back to the year 2006, we shall see that Gilead had followed exactly the same strategy for another of its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

1. Voluntary license:

At that time also 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.

Gilead did sign a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

The arrangement was somewhat like this. Gilead would charge a royalty of 5 percent on the access price of US$ 200 a year for the drug. Any company that signs a manufacturing agreement with Gilead to manufacture API of tenofovir would be able to sell them only to those generic manufacturers that have voluntary license agreements with Gilead.

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.

2. Patent challenge:

Like sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), Gilead had filed a patent application for tenofovir (Viread) in India at that time. However, the ‘Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDs’ challenged this patent application on similar grounds.

3. Patent grant refused:

In September 2009, IPO refused the grant of patent for tenofovir to Gilead, citing specific reasons  for its non-conformance to the Indian Patents Act 2005. As a result, the voluntary license agreements that Gilead had already signed with the Indian generic manufacturers were in jeopardy.

Current status:

In 2014, while planning the launch strategy of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) for India, Gilead seems to have mimicked the ‘Action Replay’ of 2006 involving tenofovir, at least, in the first two stages, as detailed above. Only the patent status of sofosbuvir from the IPO is now awaited. If IPO refuses patent grant for sofosbuvir, Gilead’s fate in India with sofosbuvir could exactly be the same as tenofovir, almost frame by frame.

Gilead and the two top players in India:

Very briefly, I would deliberate below the strategic stance taken by two top generic players in india, from 2006 to 2014, in entering into voluntary licensing agreements with Gilead  for two of its big products, as I understand.

Ranbaxy:

In my view, the stand of Ranbaxy in Gilead’s India strategy of voluntary licensing in the last eight years has remained unchanged. It involves both sofosbuvir and tenofovir.Thus, there has been a clear consistency in approach on the part of Ranbaxy on this issue.

Cipla:

Conversely, an apparent shift in Cipla’s strategic position during this period has become a bone of contention to many. For tenofovir, Cipla did not sign any voluntary license agreement with Gilead. On the contrary, it came out with its own version of this product, that too much before IPO refused to grant patent for this drug.

However, unlike 2006, Cipla decided to sign a voluntary license agreement with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2014, though no patent has yet been granted for this product in India.

Has Cipla changed its position on drug patent?

I find in various reports that this contentious issue keeps coming up every now and then today. Some die-hards have expressed disappointments. Others articulated that the new dispensation in Cipla management, has decided to take a different stance in such matter altogether.

In my view, no tectonic shift has taken place in Cipla’s position on the drug patent issue, just yet.

The owner of Cipla, the legendary Dr.Yusuf Hamied has always been saying: ‘I Am Not Against Patents … I Am Against Monopolies’

He has also reportedly been quoted saying: “About 70 per cent of the patented drugs sold worldwide are not invented by the owning companies”.

He had urged the government, instead of having to fight for CL for expensive lifesaving medicines by the generic drug makers, where voluntary licenses are not forthcoming, the government needs to pass a law giving the generic players “automatic license of rights” for such drugs, making these medicines affordable and thereby improving access to patients. In return, the local generic manufacturers would pay 4 percent royalty on net sales to patent holders. He was also very candid in articulating, if Big Pharma would come into the developing markets, like India, with reasonable prices, Cipla would not come out against it.

According to Dr. Hamied, “When you are in healthcare, you are saving lives. You have to have a humanitarian approach. You have to take into account what it costs to make and what people can pay.”

Considering all these, I reckon, the core value of Cipla and its stand on patents have not changed much, if at all, for the following reasons:

  • The voluntary license agreement of Cipla with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) along with six other generic manufacturers of India, unlike tenofovir, still vindicates its strong opposition to drug monopoly, respecting product patents.
  • Cipla along with manufacturing of sofosbuvir, maintains its right to market the product at a price that it considers affordable for the patients in India.

Conclusion:

Indian Patents Act 2005 has the requisite teeth to tame the most aggressive and ruthless players in drug pricing even for the most feared diseases of the world, such as, HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C and others.

Many global drug companies, resourceful international pharma lobby groups and governments in the developed world are opposing this commendable Act, tooth and nail, generating enormous international political pressure and even chasing it in the highest court of law in India, but in vain. Glivec case is just one example.

Some pharma majors of the world seem to be attempting to overcome this Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest in India. Their strategy includes not just voluntary licenses, but also not so transparent, though well hyped, ‘Patient Access Programs’ and the so called ‘flexible pricing’, mostly when the concerned companies are able to sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act 2005.

It has happened once with even Gilead in 2006. The drug was tenofovir. Following the same old strategy of voluntary licenses and relatively lower pricing, especially when its drug patent is pending with IPO post patent challenges, Gilead intends to launch Sovaldi in India now.

Carrying the baggage of its past in India, Gilead seems to have been caught between a rock and the hard place with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) launch in the country. On the one hand, the risk of uncertain outcome of its patent application and on the other, the risk of CL for exorbitant high price of the drug, if the patent is granted by the IPO. Probably considering all these, the company decided to repeat its 2006 tenofovir strategy of voluntary licenses, yet again in 2014, for Sovaldi in India.

As of today, Sovaldi strategy of Gilead in India appears to be progressing in the same direction as tenofovir, the way I see it. However, the final decision of IPO on the grant of its patent holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, marketing warfare of pharma majors of the world.

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.