Tag Archives: CL

India-like New Broader Compulsory Licensing Provisions in China Could Make the Global Pharma Players Edgy

Posted on by
Reply

Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

As reported earlier, Natco Pharma promised to sell its generic version of Sorafenib in India for US$ 176 for a month’s treatment as compared to Bayer’s US$ 5,600, for the same time period.

Let me now very briefly touch upon some WTO related and other facts on CL, in general.

Compulsory Licensing (CL) – A perspective:

World Trade Organization (WTO) defines CL as follows:

“Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce the patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner. It is one of the flexibilities on patent protection included in the WTO’s agreement on intellectual property — the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement”.

These flexibilities for CL are not new and exist in the TRIPS Agreement since its inception in January 1995.

However, November 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration on ‘TRIPS and Public Health’ included two new provisions of CL, one for the Least-Developed Countries (LDC) and the other for countries that do not have production capacity.

The key purpose of CL: 

CL is generally considered as an excellent provision in the Patent Law of a country to protect public health interest by the respective governments and also the intelligentsia of the civil society. The key purpose of CL is to:

  • Rectify any type of market failure
  • Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

Can CL be granted only in an Emergency situation?

This is a common misunderstanding and the WTO clarifies the situation as follows:

“The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licenses”.

Keeping all these in view, now let me go back to the China CL story.

China was preparing for it since 2008-09: 

Aljazeera in its June 9, 2012 edition reported that China was toying with this idea since 2008-2009.

In fact, during this time, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China had invited experts from other countries to train their officials on how to create robust legal grounds for the grant of CL in the country.

Chinese Patent Law amendment for CL has already been made effective:

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reported that a revised version of ‘Measures for the Compulsory Licensing for Patent Implementation’ has already been made operational in China effective May 1, 2012.

Interestingly, for “reasons of public health”, such medicines can also be exported under ‘Compulsory License’ to other countries, including those members of the World Trade Organization, where life-saving treatments are unaffordable.

In tandem, China, reportedly, is in the process of further strengthening its legal framework for local manufacturing of generic equivalents of patented drugs in the country.

Some other countries have already issued CL:

In the emerging markets, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have already granted CLs in their respective countries. It is worth noting that USA and the member countries of the European Union (EU) have also issued CL in more than one occasion.

China also encourages domestic innovation being world’s top patent filer in 2011:

All these happened, when ‘Thomson Reuters’ research report highlighted that ‘China became the world’s top patent filer in 2011, surpassing the United States and Japan as it steps up local  innovation to improve its intellectual property rights track record.’

Thus China’s intention in maintaining a right balance between encouraging domestic innovation and protecting public health interest is indeed very clear.

A key Chinese concern:

Reuters also reported that the Chinese government is now concerned with the increasing trend of HIV- AIDS in the country and wants to have ‘Viread (Tenofovir)’ of Gilead Sciences, which according to Reuters, is recommended by WHO as part of a first-line cocktail treatment for this disease condition.

Quoting ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’, Reuters reported that as a result of recent expansion of CL provisions in the Chinese Patent Law, the country compels Gilead Sciences to extend significant concessions on the supply of Viread, which includes a generous donation package for the drug, provided the Chinese government continues to buy the same quantity of the medicine from them.

Many would interpret this development as a clever use of CL by the Chinese government to compel Gilead to extend a better deal for Viread for the country.

Will China use the CL provisions for hard price negotiation for patented drugs?

Like Brazil whether China will also use CL as a potent tool to drive down patented drug prices through hard negotiation or actually make the innovator companies to extend voluntary licenses to Chinese manufactures to produce and sell equivalent generics in the country is something which needs to be very closely watched in due course of time.

Increased patent protection and its impact on drug prices in low-income countries:

On this raging debate, in a July 2011 paper titled, “China and India as Suppliers of Affordable Medicines to Developing Countries”, published by National Bureau of Economic research, USA, the authors articulated as follows:

“As countries reform their patent laws to be in compliance with the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, an important question is how increased patent protection will affect drug prices in low-income countries. Using pharmaceutical trade data from 1996 to 2005, we examine the role of China and India as suppliers of medicines to other middle- and low-income countries and evaluate the competitive effect of medicine imports from these countries on the price of medicines from high- income countries. We find that imports of antibiotics and unspecified medicament from India and China significantly depress the average price of these commodities imported from high-income trading partners, suggesting that India and China are not only important sources of inexpensive medicines but also have an indirect effect by lowering prices through competition. As India is the leading supplier of medicines in Sub-Saharan Africa, this region will likely be affected most adversely”.

Thus, this is also an area worth keeping tab in the years ahead, both in India and China.

A subtle difference: 

The difference between the Indian and Chinese move on CL, I reckon, is that the Indian Patent Office limited the CL of Sorafenib for domestic use only and not for export in any way to any other country.

However, it is interesting to note that Chinese amendment of the CL provisions will now enable the CL holders in China to apply for permissions for export of the same drug in other countries, as well. This could probably point to the direction of future ambitions of China to pave the way for rapid growth of their generic drug industry by invoking CL measures not only for use within the country, but way beyond the shores of China.

Conclusion:

It is worth noting that despite clear provisions of CL in TRIPS and especially even after Doha Declaration, the world had not seen many CL being granted by any country, as yet.

In this context, ‘Business Insider’ in its June 11, 2012 edition stated as follows:

“We haven’t seen a deluge of compulsory licenses over the years, and the drug companies (along with the U.S. government) have done what they can to slow down or halt this process. In China, every time a government official opens his mouth and even talks about compulsory licensing, the lobbyists are sent in, the Op/Ed columns are written, and things quiet down for another couple years.”

However, now with such broad provisions for CL in their respective patent laws to protect public health interest effectively, both India and China can, at least theoretically, allow introductions of low priced generic equivalents of patented medicines in their domestic markets, well before those drugs go off-patent. This development will certainly make the innovator companies edgy…very edgy!

It will be interesting to watch, whether global pharma majors consider such broad CL provisions both in India and now in China as serious business impediments or not.

Most probably, the worry will be more intense for much larger and faster growing Chinese Pharmaceutical market, which is now widely being considered as the emerging ‘Eldorado’ 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.

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

  • Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
  • The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
  • Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals  for the treatment of advanced  renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis.  Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of  violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

  1. Manufactured in India
  2. Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

  • GlaxoSmithKline  Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
  • MSD  has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
  • Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
  • In 2008 Novartis  reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
  • Roche  has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year.  Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

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.

Why does the Government divert focus on to fringe issues to address critical healthcare concerns of the nation?

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India has recently initiated a public debate through a ‘Discussion Paper on Compulsory Licensing (CL) of Patented Pharmaceutical Products’.

The key intent of the discussion is presumably to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price to the people of the country.

Could such debate serve any meaningful purpose?

Since the issue of CL involves only patented products, I wonder, whether this debate would in any way help sorting out the issue of poor access to modern medicines in our country or this is just another ‘hog wash’ or ‘diversion ploy’ of the decision makers to divert the attention of the stakeholders from the core issues of poor access to healthcare for the common man of India.

Will CL be able to address abysmally poor access to medicines issues in India?

A quick analysis of the prevailing situation related to access to modern medicines in India suggests that the usage of patented pharmaceutical products account for much less than 1% of the sum total of all medicines consumed in India in value terms. In volume terms it will be even more miniscule in terms of percentage.

As per IMS (MAT July, 2010) Indian Pharmaceutical Market size is Rs. 44,476 Crore, even 1% market share of the patented pharmaceutical products will mean Rs. 445 Crore, which is quite far from reality.

Thus, CL of patented medicines would have no sustainable and meaningful impact on improving access to modern medicines for the common man of the country. Moreover, around 40% of the population of India live below the poverty line (BPL). These ‘Children of a lesser God‘ very unfortunately, will not be able to afford any price of medicine, however cheap these could be. Vast majority of the such population who lack the financial capability to pay for even the cheapest off-patent generic medicines, which comprise more than 99% of the total medicines consumed within the country, will continue to be left in the lurch.

65% of Indians do not have access to WHO list of essential medicines, which surpasses even the African countries:

Our government also admits that 65% of Indians do not have access to even WHO list of essential medicines, none of which holds a valid patent in the country. This should be the key concern in the country. Moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during 2000-2007, India had poorer access to essential medicines than even many African countries. It is worth noting that many of these African countries has a patent life for pharmaceuticals for around 30 years, against of 20 years in India. What are we then talking about?

Provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are robust enough:

In any case, the provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are not only quite clear and well articulated, but also at the same time offer flexibility in the decision making process to the Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) to invoke CL in a justifiable situation. Thus proposed guidelines related to CL would possibly invite more questions than answers. Consequently, it will be an extremely complicated process for the IPOs to categorize all the situations related to CL. Therefore, in my view, such initiatives, as initiated by the DIPP to frame guidelines for CL could prove to be totally counterproductive, as such guidelines, as stated above, would seriously limit the flexibility of the IPOs to take appropriate action, even when it would require to do so.

Moreover, it is absolutely imperative for the Government to ensure that the primacy of the patent statutes is not disturbed in any way, as such guidelines related to CL would only be consistent with the appropriate provisions within the statute and cannot be used beyond the Patent Law of the land. It goes without saying that any dispute between the parties related to the interpretation of the provisions within the statute related to CL, should only be resolved by the judiciary.

Conclusion:

How could then CL possibly offer answers to the vexing healthcare access issues of the nation? Is the Government not wasting its precious little time, instead of trying to ‘take the bull by the horns’ and resolve the critical ‘access to affordable quality medicines’ issue of India through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives?

By Tapan 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.

Provision for Compulsory Licensing (CL) in India – some issues still need to be addressed.

Posted on by
Reply
Patent law systems provide for a provision for granting of compulsory licenses in a number of circumstances. Article 5A(2) of The Paris Convention, 1883 indicates that each contracting State may take legislative measures for the grant of compulsory licenses and reads as follows:“Each country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.”TRIPS agreement also contains important public health safeguards provisions to allow countries to override TRIPS requirements by engaging in compulsory licensing under certain situations and circumstances. Globally all patent systems comply with the requirements of TRIPS.

Doha declaration:

Doha Declaration gives WTO member-countries the right to grant compulsory licences (CL) and the right to decide on the reasons upon which such licences are to be granted. The declaration also states that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted and implemented by the member-countries in a manner to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all.

“Safeguards provision” in India:

The Indian Patent Act 2005 bestows enough power to the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs of India to issue compulsory licenses (CL) under following different sections of the Act:

1. Section 84:

This section prevents the abuse of patent as a monopoly and states that at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of grant of a patent, any interested person may make an application to the Indian Patent Office (IPO) for grant of compulsory licence on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or

(b) That the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or

(c) That the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India

Section 6 of section 84 states that in considering the application filed under this section, the controller shall take into account the following:

(i) The nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patent or licensee to make full use of the invention;

(ii) The ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

(iii) The capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application is granted;

(iv) Whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit:

Provided that this clause shall not be applicable in case of national emergencies or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use or on establishment of a ground of anti-competitive practices adopted by the patentee.

Terms and conditions of CL will be determined by the Controller under section 90.

2. Sections 92 (1) and 92 (3):

These sections enable the Central Government to deal with circumstances of national emergency or circumstance of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use by issuing CL.

3. Section 92 A:

This part enables grant of CL for export of patented pharmaceutical products in certain exceptional circumstances to any country having insufficient or no manufacturing capacity for the concerned product to address public health problems.

Some loose knots:

Some believe that there are still some loose knots in the CL provisions in India, which need to be tightened, immediately.

Granting CL for a Biopharmaceutical product could be an issue:

It will not be very easy to grant CL for a biopharmaceutical product as the conditions in which biopharmaceuticals are produced largely define the final product and its manufacturing process defines the product quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product.

Therefore following are the main issues, which need to be urgently addressed:

• Small changes in the manufacture of biopharmaceutical and biosimilar medicinal products can dramatically affect the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic molecule.

• The very nature of a biologic means that it is practically impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceuticals if identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies are not used. This has to be demonstrated in an extensive comparability program. Therefore a generic biopharmaceutical cannot possibly exist.

• Substitution issues:

By contrasts with the situation applicable for generic chemical entities, biosimilar medicines can be “similar” but not “identical” to the innovator reference products. The “similar, but not identical” nature of biosimilar medicines means that substitution of the innovator product with a biosimilar product could have clinical consequences as patients could respond differently to the two products. To guarantee the efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved following the submission of appropriate data generated with the biosimilar drug.

• Currently there are no published clear Indian guidelines for the approval of biosimilar drugs which will ensure the approval of efficacious and safe biosimilar drugs.

Some apprehensions on CL in India need to be addressed:

Some apprehensions have been expressed on possible misuse of CL and representations made to the government to address the following issues urgently. Tarceva and Stutent cases involving Nepal will probably justify such apprehensions:

o As the entire concept is based on “Working of Patents” in India, the term “Working of Patents” needs to be defined explicitly.

o Issuance of CL to be restricted to national emergency, extreme urgency and public non-commercial use

o Provisions in (Sec. 84 [7]) needs to be suitably amended that provide grounds for triggering CL by competitors for commercial benefits.

o Safeguards enshrined in the Aug 30 decision (Motta-Menon text) is to be provided for exports under Section 92A of the Indian Patents Act 2005, corresponding to Para 6 of the declaration on the TRIPS Agreement

Is paying royalty to patent holder an acceptable solution to this issue?

Many feel that this question totally ignores the right of an innovator to protect his/her innovation, which is the outcome of a painstaking, long, costly and risky R&D process. Such protection is granted to an innovator against disclosure of the data generated for the innovation to the patent office for public knowledge at large through grant of a patent for a specific time period. During this period the innovator is the exclusive owner of the innovation. The provision of CL can be invoked during this period, as stated above, for some very specific and extra-ordinary situation.

Such extra-ordinary situation, as and when will arise be addressed by the government based purely on the merits of the cases. Carte blanche permission by any authority allowing use of an innovator’s product during its patent life against a royalty payment, without innovators wish, is believed to be against the letter and spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005.

Conclusion:

In Indian Patents Act 2005, the provisions of CL should maintain a fine balance between the critical need of innovation by the pharmaceutical companies and its reach to the users to meet their unmet needs. For a country like India, CL is probably the most appropriate safeguard against potential abuse of monopoly by the patentees in case of national emergencies and to address critical public health issues.

By Tapan 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.