Tag Archives: Compulsory

MNCs to Challenge MNC Patents in India: Boon for Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Close on the heels of a reasonably successful patent challenge by the German pharma Multinational Corporation (MNC) Fresenius Kabi for the breast cancer drug Tykerb of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in India, another MNC Mylan, with its headquarter in the United states, has explicitly expressed its plan to challenge frivolous and weak patents of MNCs, in conformance to the Indian Patents Act, to provide less expensive generic drugs to patients.

This is indeed another interesting development, which could possibly culminate into robust, cleverly crafted and fiercely competitive business strategies of many other MNCs, revolving around patent challenges in India, for business excellence in the country.

Mylan develops new products in India:

Mylan is now reportedly working with the local Indian player Biocon to develop a strong new product pipeline, which would include a portfolio of biosimilar drugs. The advanced breast cancer drug Trastuzumab (Herceptin) of Roche is just one of many in the list. Mylan has also expressed its intent to market ‘Herceptin’ at a price, which will be affordable to many more cancer patients of India.

It is worth mentioning that some other domestic Indian companies like, Reliance Life Sciences and BDR Pharma are reportedly working on generic Trastuzumab (Herceptin), besides some South Korean bio-pharma players.

Mylan has also inked an agreement with Biocon to develop and market an insulin drug derived from the global major Sanofi’s expensive patented product Lantus.

All these developments apparently augur well for India.

Weak patent?…Recapitulating Herceptin saga in india:

Though Roche decided to discontinue its patent rights for Herceptin in India, it reportedly lost this patent earlier in Europe. This vindicates the views of experts that Herceptin patent was weak, as it would probably not be able to clear the litmus test of a stringent patent scrutiny. The report, therefore, argues that core reason for withdrawal of Herceptin patent in India by Roche cannot be attributed, even remotely, to the ‘weak IP ecosystem’ in India.

To extend the patent right for Herceptin, in early September 2013, Roche reportedly announced that the European Commission has approved a new formulation of its breast cancer drug Herceptin, which allows the medicine to be administered more quickly.

A tough market, yet difficult to ignore:

For global innovator pharma majors, India still remains a tough market to crack, despite strong overseas political pressures of various types, intense collective and individual lobbying efforts and deployment of expensive global ‘Public Relations’ firms working in full steam.

Their strong success factors of the yesteryears in this area, which worked so well across the world, are getting mostly negated by the ‘evolving patient friendly IP laws’ of the emerging economies.

Considering the vast business potential of the pharmaceutical market of 1.2 billion people in India, it is now envisaged by many, more like-minded MNCs will gradually jump into this fray with similar intent of patent challenges in conformance with the Indian Patents Act 2005.

If this scenario assumes a cascading effect on a broader canvas, ultimate beneficiary will be the ailing patients, having much greater access to more affordable newer drugs for many dreaded diseases, like cancer.

Other countries too tightening up the patent laws:

To provide less-expensive generic drugs to patients, other countries also have started following India to leash astronomical prices for new drugs, especially for life threatening and intensely debilitating ailments. China has reportedly strengthened its compulsory licensing provisions already for dealing with costly drugs, paving the way to force entry of generic drugs in the Chinese market well before patent expiry.

In 2012, Indian Patent Office, in a path breaking decision granted Compulsory License (CL) to a local company, Natco Pharma, to manufacture the patented kidney-cancer drug, Nexavar of Bayer reportedly at a cost of Rs. 8,800 (around US$ 176) for a month’s therapy of 120 capsule against Bayer’s price of Rs. 280,000 (around US$ 5,600) for the same.

This is the first-ever case of CL granted in India thus far to make life saving drugs affordable to patients.

On September 3, 2012, the Indonesian government took the unprecedented step of overriding the patents on seven HIV and hepatitis treatments, citing urgent need to improve patient access. These drugs were reportedly beyond the reach of most of the patients in Indonesia.

Thailand has also used this provision more than once, and countries like, Brazil has reportedly threatened quite often for invoking CL during price negotiations of such drugs with global pharma majors.

Winds of Change in South Africa:

Now South Africa has also exhibited its firm intent to have a tight leash on the grant of pharmaceutical patents of all types.

A recent report indicates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the Government of South Africa is calling for comments on its proposed ‘National Policy on Intellectual Property’ by October 4, 2013, which if implemented, would significantly curb patent evergreening and expand production of generics.

The same report mentions that at present, South Africa does not examine patent applications. Instead, the system allows pharmaceutical companies to obtain multiple patents on the same drug, even for inventions, which do not fall under the country’s definition of innovation. This allows the pharma players to extend their respective patent lives, blocking competition and charging exorbitant prices.

The report also points out, while in 2008, South Africa granted 2,442 pharmaceutical patents, Brazil approved only 278 in the 5 years between 2003 and 2008.

Patents revoked in India:

Since November 2010 following 8 MNC patents have been revoked in India after respective patent challenges:

  • Combigan and Ganfort of Allergan (for specified eye conditions)
  • Tykerb of GSK (for breast cancer)
  • Sutent of Pfizer (for liver and kidney cancer)
  • Pegasys of Roche (for hepatitis C)
  • Iressa of AstraZeneca (Anti-cancer)
  • Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension of Merck & Co (Anti-asthma)
  • Dulera of Novartis (Anti-asthma)

China and Brazil revoked patents: 

In August 2013, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc.

Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

Top 10 ‘jaw-dropping’ most expensive medicines of the world:

No. Name Disease Price US$ /Year
1. ACTH Infantile spasm 13,800,00
2. Elaprase Hunter Syndrome 657,000
3. Soliris Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria 409,500
4. Nagalazyme Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome 375,000
5. Folotyn T-Cell Lymphoma 360,000
6. Cinryze Hereditary Angioedema 350,000
7. Myozyme Pompe 300,000
8. Arcalyst Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome 250,000
9. Ceredase / Cerezyme Gaucher Disease 200,000
10. Fabrazyme Fabry Disease 200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is, protests against such ‘immoral and obscene pricing’ have started mounting, which are expected to have a snow-balling effect in the years ahead.

Mounting global protests:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Emerging markets – the Eldorado:

Competition within MNCs is expected to be even more fierce in the coming years as the developed markets continue to slow down, as follows, due to various reasons:

No. Country

USD Bn.

% Share

Val. Gr.
Global Pharma Market

961

100

5
USA

329

38

-1
Japan

112

13

0
China

82

10

24
Germany

42

5

-6
France

37

4

-8
Brazil

29

3

6
Italy

27

3

-8
13. India

14

1

11

Source: IMS Knowledge Link Global Sales 2012

This compelling scenario is prompting a change in the dynamics of competition within  MNCs in the emerging pharmaceutical markets. The intents of Fresenius Kabi and Mylan, as enunciated above, I reckon, are just very early signals of this challenge of change.

All these would probably help turning the tide in favor of a seemingly win-win solution to bring down the prices of patented medicines at an affordable level, improving their access to vast majority of patients in the world.

Scope for more patent challenges in India:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded:

“This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Therefore, this process is expected to gain momentum in the years ahead as more MNCs join the fray of patent challenges, though driven primarily by business interests, but nevertheless, would benefit the patients, in the long run.

Further, as indicated in my previous columns, a study indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today. If challenged, some experts envisage, these patents may not be able to stand the scrutiny of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.

In that sense, if the pharma MNCs with deep pockets, challenge these patents, there stands a good chance of making generic equivalents of those products at affordable prices for the Indian patients.

However, considering different degree and elements of market entry barriers, it appears, most of the patent challenges in India by the MNCs would probably be for biologics, as compared to small molecule chemicals.

Flow of newer drugs in the Indian market is now irreversible:

Taking stock of the emerging scenario, it appears, India will continue to see newer drugs coming into the market at a lower price in the years ahead, come what may. This flow seems to be unstoppable due to the following reasons:

  • Stricter implementation of Section (3d) of the Patents Act in India will ensure that NCEs/NMEs not conforming to this act will not be granted patents. In that case, those products will be open to generic copying by all, in India. Thus, in the absence of a market monopoly situation and fuelled by intense price competition, the patients will have access to those newer drugs.
  • More patent challenges of already granted patents could lead to revocation of more number of patents paving the way for entry of their generic equivalents.
  • If any MNC decides not to launch a new product in India having obtained its patent from the IPO, after three years, as per the statute, the same product becomes a candidate for CL in the country.
  • If any patented new product is launched without ‘reasonably affordable price’, again as per statute, the possibility of applications for CL coming to the IPO from the local players will loom large.

Hence, considering all these points, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the Indian Patents Act and are not launched with responsible pricing, the possibility of their generic entry at much lower prices is almost inevitable.

Conclusion: 

Legal battle is expensive, even in India, and patent challenges are perhaps more expensive. All those new products, which are not patentable in India or may otherwise be challenged against other statutes of the Patents Act, will carry risks of getting caught in protracted litigations or generic competition.

MNCs with deep pockets coming forward with such intent, though may be based purely on their business interest in India, would ultimately offer spin-off benefits of affordable pricing, especially, to the patients suffering from life threatening and fast debilitating illnesses like, cancer.

That said, do all these developments unravel yet another way to improve access to newer medicines in India, signaling a boon for patients?

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.

 

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

Posted on by
Reply

Revocation of four pharma patents by India and China within a fortnight has raised many eyebrows, yet again, across the globe. In this short period, India has revoked three patents and China one.

While this quick development is probably a double whammy for the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operating in both the countries, a future trend could possibly emerge by analyzing and connecting the evolving dots.

On August 8, 2013, a judicial body, the Intellectual Property Apellate Board (IPAB) of India reportedly revoked two patents of Allergan Inc on Combigan and Ganfort, both are Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs of known molecules, used in the treatment of specified eye conditions. Local pharmaceutical player Ajantha Pharma had challenged these patents granted earlier to Allergan Inc. by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), alleging that the patents were obtained on false representation, the compositions were obvious ones, mere admixture of two pharmaceutical substances and not inventions.

IPAB in its order, while revoking the patent, has also said:

  • “The revocation of the patent was sought on various grounds that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention, that it is obvious and does not sufficiently disclose and that the Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.”
  • The “respondents (Allergan Inc) have incorrectly deciphered enhancement in therapeutic efficacy as reduction in interocular pressure comparable to serial application.”
  • “The respondent has not shown that it had complied with the Section 8 of Patents Act, 1970.”

Though Allergan claimed to have achieved enhanced efficacy with reduced side effects for these FDCs, the IPAB did not find the claims justifiable. Interestingly, Ajantha’s product reportedly is much less expensive too. As compared to Allergan’s Ganfort drops (3 ml) costing about Rs 580, Ajanta’s equivalent formulation costs just Rs 131.

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

On July 27, 2013, IPAB revoked yet another patent granted earlier to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Lapatinib ditosylate salt of its breast cancer drug Tykerb, while upholding the patent on the original API, Lapatinib. IPAB in its order has stated that the ditosylate salt version of Lapatinib is not patentable as per patentability criteria of the Indian Patents Act.

Experts believe, with these decisions, the Indian legal system has clearly demonstrated that despite intense anger, pressure and protests mainly from the United States and Europe, to dilute public health interest related safeguards enshrined in the current Indian patent regime, the rule of law still prevails in the country for IP disputes.

Tykerb decision of IPAB follows the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifying patentability criteria for incremental innovations.

An interesting precedent set:

In case of Tykerb of GSK, unlike other occasions, for the first time one MNC has challenged the patent of another MNC in India, instead of domestic companies doing so. The German drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, instead of criticizing Indian IP law like other MNCs, had challenged the British drug maker GSK’s patent on the patentability criteria as provided in the Indian Patent Law and obtained a favorable decision from the IPAB against one of their two patent challenges on Tykerb.

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

Earlier, in late 2012, Delhi High Court while recognizing the validity of Roche’s patent for Tarceva (erlotinib), ordered that Cipla’s generic equivalent of erlotinib has different molecular structures. Hence, Cipla has not infringed Roche’s patent.

The generic version of Cipla’s erlotinib is reportedly available at a price of Rs 1,600 against Roche’s price of Rs 4,800 for Tarceva. Though this is not a patent revocation, but an interesting case nevertheless.

Other patent revocations:

Besides the only Compulsory License (CL) issued, so far, by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco (Cost of a pack of 120 tablets of Natco generic is Rs.8,800 against Nexavar’s Rs. 280,000), such patent challenges are now taking place in India quite close on the heels of one another as follows:

Sutent (Pfizer): 

In this case, the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), granted earlier by the IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October 2012, after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedly restored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copycat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The cost of 45 day’s treatment with Cipla generic is Rs. 50,000 against Rs. 196,000 of Sutent. (Source ET, April 7, 2013)

Pegasys (Roche):

Again, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. It is worth mentioning, Pegasys enjoys patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by IPO in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a ‘novel’ product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’ as required by the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, the judicial body IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys, costing Rs. 360,000 for a six month course of treatment for a patient.

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

On November 26, 2012, IPAB reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Iressa (Gefitinib) on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, IPO in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Iressa Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension (Merck & Co):

Similar to Allergan case, on December 11, 2012 Indian Patent Office (IPO) reportedly revoked a patent granted to an anti-asthma FDC drug of Merck & Co on the ground of lack of invention, after the domestic pharma major Cipla Ltd challenged an earlier granted patent of this FDC drug.

This aerosol suspension combines three molecules: mometasone furoate, formoterol and heptaflouropropane.

A similar asthma treatment, Dulera, reportedly lost its Indian patent held by Novartis AG in 2010.

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovation’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.”

“Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Indian Patents Act prevails: 

As is well known, way back in 2006, IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as Imatinib.

In that case, on April 1, 2013 the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 3(d), where the rules of the game for patentability of incremental pharmaceutical innovations, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005, were cast in stone.

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

Point 191 in page number 95 of the Glivec judgment very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus, it should not be highlighted unfairly by concerned constituents that all ‘incremental innovations’ are not patentable in India. The above judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and the arguments of Novartis.

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded, “This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Rejection by IPO under Section 3d is minimum – is that a key issue?

Another study done by Columbia University reportedly found that out of 214 patents filed in India last year, only 3 patents were rejected by IPO exclusively for failing to prove better efficacy, as required under Section 3d. Turning this finding on its head, would it be reasonable to ponder:

Could this be a key issue for so many patents failing to pass the acid test of judicial scrutiny when challenged?

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, patent challenge is a legal process all over the world, where the Government has hardly any role to play in resolving these disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary by the vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Pharma patents granted in India:

As reported in the media, pharma MNCs have been granted over 1,000 patents since 2005. Moreover out of 4,036 patents granted in the past six years, 1,130 have been awarded to MNCs, like:

  • AstraZeneca 180 patents
  • Roche with 166 patents
  • Sanofi with 159 patents
  • Novartis with 147 patents

It is therefore understandable, as pharma MNCs have secured more number of pharma patents they are facing larger number of litigations at this point of time.

China and Brazil revoke patents:

Last week, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc. Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa has reportedly submitted to the South African Cabinet a draft Intellectual Property Policy with far-reaching changes to the country’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for medicines in order to increase access to cheaper drugs by making it harder for companies to obtain and extend patents.

The draft includes a proposal to introduce a patent examination office to stop pharmaceutical companies from “evergreening” where companies take out new patents based on minor changes or new uses. 

Currently, South Africa uses a depository system, in which patent applications are granted without extensive scrutiny. Experts believe, “this system allows companies to file multiple patents on the same medicine and extend the life of their monopoly, keeping prices artificially high.”

Innovators Angry:

In this context, the following report recently captured the anger of the innovator companies and stated that the US drug giants are once again pushing for stronger patent protection in India:

“A coalition of U.S. lawmakers and business groups outlined concerns about Indian policies as a threat to American exports, jobs and innovation in a letter to President Barack Obama on June 18. Among the business groups were the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Association. On June 14, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee urged that Kerry raise trade concerns on his visit.”

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report highlighted, “Recent policy and judicial decisions that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate. From the revocation of patents to the staggering rates of piracy, India stands alone as an international outlier in IP policies. This trend is bad for investment, innovation and international trade.”

Does it benefit patients? 

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socioeconomic and political requirements of a nation, as in India.  

Following table is an example of price differential between patented and generic equivalents of those molecules used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS:

1

2

3

3TC (Lamivudine)

Zerit (Stavudine)

Viramune (Nevirapine)

Price / Year / Patient in US$

Price / Year / Patient in US$

Price / Year /Patient in US$

GSK

Cipla

Hetero

BMS

Cipla

Hetero

B.I.*

Cipla

Hetero

3271

190

98

3589

70

47

3508

340

202

(Source: Third World Network, *B.I: Boehringer Ingelheim) 

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India causing immense hardships to them.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Conclusion:

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today.

If the apprehension, as expressed above in the IPA study has any merit, right answers to the following questions, I reckon, would help charting out the future direction for the IP ecosystem of India:

  • Is there a theoretical possibility of revocation of all these 86 already granted product patents, if and when challenged in a court of law?
  • Is the current Patents Act of India pragmatic?
  • Does it reasonably benefit both the innovators and the Indian patients,  signifying a paradigm shift in the global IPR scenario?
  • Will it inspire other countries also to emulate similar IP system in the years ahead?
  • Will it then invite more intense ire of the global pharma innovator companies creating increasing  pressure on the Indian Government to amend the current Patents Act?
  • Being under continuous public scrutiny, would it be feasible for any Indian Government, now or in future, in the near or medium term, to amend the Indian Patents Act due to any amount of outside pressure?
  • And finally, is the Act then irreversible, at least, for quite some time from now?

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.

 

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Posted on by
Reply

In November 2012, as a part of the ‘Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab’ for the treatment of breast cancer, a citizens’ collective, reportedly sent an ‘Open Letter’ signed by around 200 cancer survivors, women’s groups, human rights and health rights campaigns and treatment activists from across the world to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the breast-cancer drug Trastuzumab is made affordable for treating cancer patients in the country.

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

  • Breast-cancer affects around 28-35 per cent of all cancers among women in major cities of India.
  • No other drug against HER+2 cancer can reduce patients’ mortality as Trastuzumab and reduce the spread of malignancy to other parts of the body.
  • Majority of women with HER+2 breast cancer do not have access to a complete course of the drug, which reportedly costs anywhere between Rs 6 to 8 lakhs (US$ 11,000 to US$ 14,500).

Reaping reach harvest: 

According to a media report, three homegrown Indian companies are currently developing biosimilar drugs to this protein molecule to reap a reach harvest arising out of the emerging opportunities.

However, this is expected to be an arduous, expensive and challenging endeavor, as the concerned companies will require pursuing a complicated biotechnological route to create follow-on biologics for Trastuzumab.

The ‘Trigger Factor’: 

It is widely believed that the above ‘Open Letter’ to the Prime Minister had prompted the Ministry of Health to form an ‘Experts Committee’ to evaluate the situation and make recommendations accordingly.

Thereafter, within a short period of time, in January, 2013, in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Ministry of Health forwarded the report of the above ‘Experts Committee’ to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for its consideration to issue Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs namely, Trastuzumab (used for breast cancer), Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy) and Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia). Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), among other experts, also reportedly had participated as a member of this ‘Experts Committee’,

For a month’s treatment drugs like Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

 A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged: 

Such a rapid development in the CL landscape of India is indeed intriguing, especially after a voluntary announcement by Roche in 2012 that it will produce Trastuzumab and Rituximab in India through transfer of technology to an Indian contract manufacturer.

Consequently for a month’s treatment, the price of Trastuzumab will come down from around US$ 2,000 to US$ 1, 366, i.e. by 31 percent and Rituximab from around US$ 1,456 to US$ 682 i.e. by 53 percent. This was reportedly announced by none other than the Minister of State of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India Mr. Srikant Jena.

Despite this voluntary decision of technology transfer and price reduction of two life saving drugs in India by Roche, reported Government consideration for grant of CL for Trastuzumab, without getting engaged in any form of a win-win dialogue with the Company, could ultimately prove to be counter productive and may discourage further technology transfer of expensive patented drugs to India.

Increasing incidence of cancer in India: 

Cancer is just not a dreaded disease, but also making a devastating impact, financial and otherwise, on the lives and families of thousands of sufferers in India.

According to ‘The Lancet’, published on 28 March 2012, in India 556 400 people died of cancer only in 2010.

The paper also comments that only half of the estimated 9.8 million total deaths per year is captured by the CRS in India, fewer than 4 percent are medically certified, while more than 75 percent of deaths occur at home.

The Lancet study clearly highlights that most cancer patients in India die without medical attention and drugs. Cancer is, therefore, increasingly becoming a public sensitive disease area with high socioeconomic impact in the country. High treatment cost of this near terminal disease is beyond reach of majority of population in the country.

In a written reply to a question in the ‘Upper House’ of the Indian Parliament, the Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare on March 4, 2012 said that according to “Three Year Report on Population Based Cancer Registries 2006 – 08″ of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the estimated numbers of cancer patients for 2015 and 2020 are 1.16 million and 1.27 million respectively. There is a gradual rise in the prevalence of cancer in India, though the government has initiated several measures in this area.

High incidence of breast cancer: 

As per a recent report, an estimated 1, 00,000 – 1, 25,000 new patients suffer from breast cancer every year in India and this number is expected to double by 2025.

Government is mulling CL for NCD: 

Currently the DIPP appears to be planning to extend the provision of Compulsory License  (CL) beyond cancer drugs to other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) in the country, like diabetes. 

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move: 

A major domestic pharmaceutical industry association, as per media reports, supports this move by clearly articulating, “Over the years, more deaths are taking place on account of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) than communicable ones. It is, therefore, natural that this provision (CL) will be used for NCDs as well.”

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement: 

Experts believe that this new move on CL for drugs related to NCDs is a consequence of India’s signing the United Nation (UN) declaration on the prevention of NCDs in the country by, among others, using flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to increase availability of affordable drugs for such diseases.

The Government has already launched a “National Program for Prevention & Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardio Vascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)” as a pilot project covering 150 million people in 100 inaccessible and most backward districts during the financial year 2011-2012 at a cost of US$ 275 million.

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India: 

Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM) in an article titled, “Social and Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India” has highlighted, among others as follows:

  • NCDs account for 62 percent of the total disease burden in India with a significant ascending trend both in terms of overall mortality and morbidity.
  • This burden is likely to increase in the years to come.
  • Due to chronic nature of the disease and technological advancements in care, costs of treatment are high leading to access barriers, or ‘catastrophic expenditures’ for those who undergo treatment.
  • There are evidences of greater financial implications for the poorer households suffering from NCDs.
  • Most estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for a significant economic burden ranging from 5 to 10 percent of GDP.
  • An urgent multi-sectoral Government action is strongly warranted both on grounds of economic arguments and social justice.
  • Action needs focus on addressing the social determinants of NCDs for prevention and strengthening of health systems to meet the challenge.
  • A framework for monitoring, reporting, and accountability is essential to ensure that the returns on investments in NCDs meet the targets and expectations set in the national plans.

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse: 

Reacting to all these developments, the global pharmaceutical companies have, once again, expressed strong commitment to protect and continue to defend their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the legal framework of India.

They have also reiterated their belief that a robust IPR regime will encourage innovation in the country making available more and more innovative drugs for the patients in India.

An interesting WHO report on a ‘robust IPR regime’: 

In this regard a World Health Organization (WHO) research report titled “Patents, Price Controls and Access to New Drugs: How Policy Affects Global Market Entry” makes some interesting observations on a ‘robust IPR regime’.

The report highlights the following four important points:

1. Increasing the strength of a patent system to include long-term protection on pharmaceutical products appears to spur market entry mostly in the high-income countries.

For the low- and middle-income countries that are currently being encouraged to move to stronger protection through trade policies, the evidence that extending protection enhances access to new pharmaceuticals is mixed.

2. There is some evidence that high level of protection might encourage more frequent entry of innovative products in the short term. However, in the longer term the same domestic capacity could well be an alternative source of entry of such drugs.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) holders frequently assert that the poor quality of enforcement in developing countries undermines the value of their patent rights. However, it is quite evident now that patent laws in these countries are at least broadly meaningful commensurate to their respective domestic requirements.

4. The standard argument on price regulation that it will dissuade market entry for innovative drugs appears to have more relevance among the high-income countries and not so for the poorer countries.

The authors further indicate:

“There we find that while price regulation makes it less likely that new drugs will be available quickly, it does not appear to prevent new products from being launched eventually.”

Conclusion: 

Following all these recent developments and weighing pros and cons, one could well imagine that pressure on the Government from various stakeholders for CL on drugs for Cancer and NCDs will keep mounting, unless an alternative measure like, ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ is put in place by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, sooner than later, in 2013.

The recent judgment of the ‘Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’ on CL to Natco may further add fuel to this raging debate.

It is now quite clear from the Finance Minister’s speech on the ‘Union Budget Proposal’ for 2013-14 that eagerly awaited ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or ‘Free Distribution of Essential Medicines to all’ schemes will not be implemented, at least for now.

Thus in all probability, the ghost of CL will keep haunting the innovators in India unabated, unless an effective, scalable and sustainable model for improving access to patented drugs for majority of population in the country is put in place. This will call for demonstrative, innovative and constructive Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) initiatives, sooner. In this effort  all concerned should at first be aligned with the cause, in principle, and try to be a constructive partner to get it translated into reality together, rather than just playing the role of vociferous critics in perpetuity .

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.

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on by
Reply

On January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

-       Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

-       Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

-       Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

CL through a different route:

This time the government can reportedly notify its intent to grant  CL under Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act 2005, only if any of the following three conditions are met:

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

After such Government notification in the gazette, any company interested in manufacturing any or all of these three products can directly apply for a CL to the Indian Patent Office (IPO).

This route is also expected to save usual litigation costs for the interested pharmaceutical players.

In such case, this will be the first time in India, when instead of pharmaceutical players applying for CL the Government on its own will trigger the CL process.

A situation like this will undoubtedly signal immense unpredictability in the IPR environment of the country.

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

Interestingly, section 4(xv) of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) under ‘Patented Drugs’ states as follows:

“There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated 1st February, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

A media report also highlighted that an inter-ministerial group constituted for regulating prices of patented medicines in India has recommended using a per capita income-linked reference pricing mechanism for such products.

Thus, it is rather intriguing for many to fathom, why is the Government contemplating to grant CL on the above three anti-cancer drugs in January 2013, despite the decision of the Union Cabinet on the same in the new Drug Policy as recent as December, 2012.

Medicines come at the third stage of a medical treatment process:

For all patients, including the cancer victims, medicines will come at the earliest in the third stage of any treatment process, the first two or in some cases first three stages being:

  • A doctor’s intervention
  • Correct diagnosis through diagnostic processes
  • Surgical interventions (in some cases)

In India, there is no regulation to address the ‘cost issues’ of the first two or three stages of treatment, though there is a dire need to facilitate the entire process and not just one. Coming straight to cancer medicines considering these as the only ‘magic wands’ to improve access to treatment, may well be considered as ‘jumping the gun’ by the Government, if not an imprudent decision.

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

Healthcare distribution in India is rather skewed and cancer treatment is no exception mainly because of the following reasons:

  • Medical personnel are concentrated in urban areas.
  • 74 percent of doctors work in urban settlements, which is just around 1/4th of the population.
  • 61 percent of the medical colleges are in the 6 states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Pudicherry.
  • Whereas, just 11 percent of these are located in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and the north-eastern states
  • 369,351 government beds are in urban areas and a mere 143,069 beds in the rural areas.
  • Rural “doctors to population” ratio is lower by 6 times as compared to urban areas.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

In India, not just compared to the developed nations, even as compared BRIC countries, there is a huge infrastructural deficiencies as follows:

Indicators

Year

India

US

UK

Brazil

China
Hospital Bed Density(Per 10000 population)

2011

12

31

39

24

30
Doctor Density(Per 10000 population)

2011

6

27

21

17

14

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

  • 0.6 doctors per 1000 population as against the global average of 1.23 suggests an evident manpower gap in the very first stage of a treatment process.
  • Number of beds available per 1000 people in India is only 1.2, which is less than half of the global average of 2.6.

Coming to Medical Colleges, the scenario is equally dismal, as follows:

Year

Number of Medical Colleges

Total Admissions

2011-2012

314

29,263

No of dental Colleges

Total Admissions

2011-2012

289

2783

(Source: Medical Council of India & Dental Council of India)

Thus, India needs to open around 600 medical colleges (100 seats per college) and 1500 nursing colleges (60 seats per college) in order to meet the global average of doctors and nurses.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011) 

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

It has been reported that a deficit of 64 lakh (6.4 million) allied healthcare professionals India with highest gaps in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, is a stumbling block in providing basic and quality healthcare to Indian population, as follows:

Healthcare Professionals

Shortage
Anesthetists and technicians              850,000
Dental staff              2.04 Million
Ophthalmologists and optometrists              127, 000
Rehabilitation specialists              1.8 Million
Medical laboratory technicians              61,000
Radiographers              19,000
Audiology and speech language specialists                7,500
Medical staff              230,000

(Source: Times Of India, December 20, 2012)

Is the Government ‘missing the woods for the trees’?

In a scenario like this, it is rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of compulsory licenses by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to patented medicines on a long term basis.

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions of CL in the Patents Act of many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date for the obvious reasons.

The details are as follows:

Country Medicine CL granted in:
Israel Hepatitis B Vaccine October 1995
Italy Imipenem (antibiotic) June 2005
Italy Sumatriptan Succinate (migraine) February 2006
Canada Oseltamivir (influenza) July 2006
Brazil Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS) May 2007
Thailand Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer) January 2008
India Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer) March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

However, I hasten to add that despite all these, the provision of CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has immense relevance, if invoked in the right kind of circumstances.

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical: 

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally. Even in the developed nations, where an appropriate healthcare infrastructure is already in place, this issue comes up too often mainly during price negotiation for reimbursed drugs.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price.

In India, the Government is already mulling to put in place a similar mechanism for patented medicines, as captured in the NPPP 2012.

Further, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market. The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines.

An evolving global trend:

To address such pricing issues, global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in reference countries.

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Swiss drug major Roche, has reportedly entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company – Emcure Pharma, for its two widely acclaimed Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

The report says that in the past, Emcure had signed licensing deals with US-based bio-pharmaceutical drug maker Gilead Life Sciences for Tenafovir and with Johnson and Johnson for Darunavir. Both are anti-HIV drugs.

In this regard, media reports further indicated that Roche would offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded versions of these two anti-cancer drugs by early this year. The same news item also quoted the Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Such ‘out of box’ strategies and initiatives by the global innovator companies could help keeping prices of patented products affordable to the Indian patients, improving their access significantly and making the likes of the current Government initiative on CL irrelevant. 

Conclusion:

It is generally accepted that the provisions for CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has utmost relevance in terms of public health interest for all concerned.

However, keeping in view of recent policy announcement in the NPPP 2012, as approved by the Union Cabinet, on price negotiation for patented products, the reported Government move of invoking these provisions for three anti-cancer drugs is rather intriguing.

Moreover, even for the cancer patients, there seems to be a greater urgency to attend to basic healthcare infrastructural and delivery issues, besides providing Universal Health Coverage  (UHC) as recommended by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) constituted for this purpose by the Government.

Far encompassing critical decisions like grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Thus, recent news reports on the possibility of further grant of three more CLs could make the pharmaceutical business environment for the innovator companies in India more uncertain.

Demonstrable predictability for an innovation friendly environment is critical for the economic growth of India, which the Government should not lose sight of. Just upping the ante for more CL of anti-cancer drugs will not necessarily help improving access to cancer treatments in India.

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. 

The Game Changers in 2012 and A Crystal Gazing into 2013

Posted on by
Reply

Wish You and Your Dear Ones Best of Health, Happiness, Success and Prosperity in The Brand New Year.

Welcome 2013

 The Global Pharmaceutical Industry (GPI), by and large, used to be considered as ‘recession-proof’ for various valid reasons. However, the waves of ‘global economic meltdown’ since last several years prompted the rating service Moody to downgrade its outlook to ‘Negative’ in 2007.

However, on September 24, 2012 the same rating service upgraded the outlook of the GPI to ‘Stable’ from “Negative,” indicating subsiding impact of the wave of drug patent expiration, come 2013.

Various other sources also vindicate that the GPI has in fact now bottomed-out. Available data from IMS Health estimates that the industry will grow from US$ 956 billion in 2011 to around US$ 1004 billion by end 2012 with a growth of approximately 5 percent driven mainly by:

-      Cost optimization

-      Higher  disease prevalence across the world

-      Increasing per capita income

The United States continue to maintain its top slot in the industry followed by the European Union and Japan.

All may not be hunky-dory in the GPI just yet, nevertheless 2013 does point towards some early signs of revival after a very uncertain period, prompting a paradigm shift, especially in the mind-set of the global players. This emerging trend could well form a separate topic of discussion altogether in some other time.

Buoyancy in India:

Back home in India the situation is quite different. The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (IPI) still remains recession-proof. The market buoyancy continued as ‘PharmaTrac India’ reported a turnover of the domestic pharmaceutical market at around US$ 12.6 billion growing over 15 percent annually.

In this article I shall focus on the domestic pharmaceutical market of India.

The Game Changers of 2012:

Looking back, during the year 2012 the ‘Top Five Game Changers’ for the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), in my opinion, are as follows:

1. A DIFFERENT ‘Drug Policy’ after 10 years:

The ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012)’ heralds a paradigm shift in the pharmaceutical price control regime of India for the years ahead with a switch from the ‘Cost Based Pricing CBP)’ methodology to ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ and also in its ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ based span of price control.

The industry has already articulated, though the new policy will make an immediate and significant adverse financial impact on them, market based pricing is directionally prudent for all in the longer term. They feel that MBP is expected to help improving both affordability and availability of medicines.

Such a policy, some stakeholders believe, along with the Government initiative to make essential medicines available free of cost through public hospitals and health centers will benefit all sections of the society, giving a boost to overall consumption of pharmaceutical products in India. It is also good to note that the new policy promises price control exemptions for patented drugs and products with NDDS developed in India through indigenous R&D.

NPPP 2012, is expected to be a game changer for the industry by many, as it will help bringing more stability in the pharma pricing regulation system of India.

However, there is a flip side to this story.

All stakeholders are not equally happy with the NPPP 2012.

In this context, it is worth noting that in an ongoing Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court by ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’, the petitioner has already drawn the attention of the Court to their ‘Interim Application’ challenging the NPPP 2012 by stating that the ‘policy finalized by the Government will in effect do away with the very notion of price controls’. In response the apex court reportedly had observed that it will consider the averments of AIDAN in the next hearing of January 15, 2013, once the printed Gazette Notification is put on record before the Court by the Government.

2. First ever grant of Compulsory License in India:

On March 12, 2012, Indian Patent Office (IPO), 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.

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its deep disappointment and anguish over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe, on the contrary, have reportedly hailed this order as a game changer to improve access to high-priced patented medicines in the country with a firm conviction that the ‘Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)’ and ‘Patients’ Access Issues’ can not tread different paths. They have reportedly opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for an exceptionally high-priced sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that “patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not ‘reasonably affordable’, as stated in the statute”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that if responsible pricing strategy for patented medicines is not followed in India even after the grant of first ever CL by the IPO, one could  well expect other generic players applying for CL mainly for the imported high priced patented medicines purely as a business strategy, but citing the reason of improving patients’ access in the country.

3. First ever Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs in India: 

Across the world, biologic drugs have a successful record in treating many life threatening and other complicated ailments. Expiration of product patents of the first major group of originators’ biologic molecules has led to the development of products that are designed to be ‘similar’ to the originators’ products, as it is virtually impossible to replicate any protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. These are ‘Biosimilar Drugs’, which rely, in part, on prior information obtained from the innovators’ products and demonstration of similarity with the originator’s molecule based on detailed and comprehensive product characterization, for their marketing approval.

India has the potential to become one of the key players in the development and manufacture of biosimilar drugs, not only to serve the needs of the local population, but also for export to large developed markets. However, for this dream to materialize, a science-driven ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ are absolutely necessary. These guidelines provide a regulatory framework or pathway to ensure that ‘Biosimilar Drugs’ are of good quality and demonstrably similar in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to the original reference products.

Considerable developments have occurred across the globe, in the scientific and regulatory understanding of biosimilar drugs. Nearly all developed nations and many developing countries have now defined appropriate regulatory framework for the same. However, due to lack of such guidelines in India, until recently, there have been instances of so called ‘biosimilar drugs’ being approved for marketing, reportedly with sub-optimal testing and dossiers, thereby putting into question product quality, comparability and patient safety.

Under this back-drop, the need for such a regulatory framework and comprehensive guidelines is even greater in India, mainly in the light of sub-optimal pharmacovigilance system in the country, besides other reasons.

Keeping these issues in view, the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare and the Science and Technology released India’s first “Guidelines on Similar Biologics: Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Authorization in India” in 2012. These Guidelines have been made operational effective September 15, 2012.

Long awaited new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ of India, demonstrating an overall similarity in the philosophy and approach with the those in the U.S and Europe, though a belated move by the Government, but certainly yet another game changer of 2012.

I reckon, this critical step will help ‘Made in India’ biosimilar drugs availing opportunities in the emerging biosimilar markets of the world including Europe and America.

4. Increase in National Health Expenditure Budget from 1% to 2.5% of GDP:

This decision of the Government in 2012 could help paving the way to provide basic healthcare services to all citizens of India through “Universal Health Coverage (UHC)”, which has the vast potential to be another game changer in the healthcare space of India.

It is envisaged that UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of the country, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public Sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ Private Providers for healthcare services. It is envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes.

Thus, UHC, I reckon, will also be able to address simultaneously the critical issue of high ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenses of the common citizens and at the same time increase consumption of overall healthcare, giving a boost to the growth of the pharma industry together with other healthcare sectors.

Implemented sooner, ignoring motivated stalling tactics by the vested interests, if any, could usher-in the dawn of a new healthcare reform process in India for all.

5. Announcement of Distribution of Essential Drugs free of cost to all, from Government Hospitals and Dispensaries:

In July 2012 the Government of India took a landmark ‘Public Healthcare’ related initiative to provide unbranded generic formulations of all essential drugs, featuring in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011’, free of cost to all patients, from the public hospitals and dispensaries across the country.

This social sector project was expected to roll out, as reported in the media, from October/November 2012 with a cost of around US$ 5 billion during the 12th Five Year Plan period of the country. Considering medicines account for around 70% of the total ‘Out of Pocket’ expenses, this particular initiative is expected to be yet another game changer to benefit, especially the poorer patients of the society.

This new scheme, I reckon, has also the potential to hasten the overall growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as poor patients who could not afford will now have access to essential medicines. On the other hand, rapidly growing middle class population will continue to favor branded generic drugs prescribed by the doctors at the private hospitals and clinics.

Some people are apprehending that generic drug makers will have brighter days as the project starts rolling on. This apprehension is based on the assumption that large branded generic players will be unable to take part in this big ticket drug procurement process of the Government, which seems to be imaginary.

However, in my view, it could well be a win-win situation for all types of players in the industry, where both the generic-generic and branded-generic businesses will continue to grow simultaneously.

That said procedural delays and drug quality issues, while procuring cheaper generics, may pose to be a great challenge for the Government to ensure speedier implementation of this project. Drug regulatory and law enforcing authorities will require to be extremely vigilant to ensure that while sourcing cheaper generic drugs, “Public health and safety” due to quality issues do not get compromised in any way.

A Crystal Gazing into 2013:

While Crystal Gazing into 2013, following seven possible developments come to the top of my mind:

  1. New Drug Policy may get caught in Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
  2. UHC related pilot projects may start coming up.
  3. More stringent regulatory requirements for Clinical Trials, Product Marketing approvals, Pricing of Patented Medicines and Ethical Marketing practices may come into in-force.
  4. Along with public investments more private initiatives, both global and local, are expected in the healthcare infrastructure space including in e-healthcare.
  5. Domestics Pharma Companies could challenge increasing number of patents and may also apply for Compulsory Licenses following the set precedence of 2012.
  6. The Supreme Court judgment on Glivec case could bring more clarity in ‘incremental innovation’ in general and the Section 3(d) in particular.
  7. More consolidation within the pharmaceutical industry may take place with valuation still remaining high.

Conclusion:

The year 2012, especially for the pharmaceutical industry in India, was indeed eventful. The ‘Top Five’ that I have picked-up out of various interesting developments during the year, could in many ways be the ‘Game Changers’ for the industry during the years ahead.

Key measures, both in the public and private space, be it fostering R&D or improving access to healthcare for the general population, fell well short of adequate even in 2012.

My ‘Crystal Gazing into 2013’, if comes true, will make the year even more eventful in India. The new year could signal herald of yet another interesting  paradigm. A paradigm that may churn quite different sets of rapidly evolving issues requiring more innovative honed skill-sets for their speedy redressal, as the time keeps moving on.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

 

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

Compulsory License (CL) is generally considered a very important provision in the Patent Act of a country to protect public health interest not only by the governments, but also by a large number of experts across the globe and the intelligentsia within the civil society.

The key objectives:

The key objectives of the CL provisions in the statute are to:

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

WHO hails CL provisions:

‘The World Health Organization (WHO)’ says that ‘the provision for Compulsory Licenses (CL) is a critical element in a health-sensitive patent law’. It emphasized that CL constitutes an effective mechanism to:

-     Promote competition

-     Increase affordability of drugs, while ensuring that the patent owner obtains compensation

for the use of the invention

-     Lack or insufficiency of working of patent

-     Remedy of anti-competitive practices

-     National emergency

-     Government use for non-commercial purpose

-     Other public interest grounds

WHO also recommends the use of CL for any “abuse of patent rights”. This is primarily to ensure that drug prices remain consistent with local purchasing power.

Even ‘UNAIDS’ have recommended the use of CL, as provided under the TRIPS Agreement, where countries have the right to issue such licenses.

Views of R&D based pharma companies:

It is well known that the provisions for the grant of CL other than national emergencies have been generally opposed by the research-based pharmaceutical industry on the grounds that they discourage investments on R&D.

Despite such opposition, most developed countries have CL provisions in their law, which the respective governments can use to promote competition and access to medicines.

Provisions for CL in TRIPS Agreement:

While TRIPS agreement does not limit the grounds or reasons for granting CL, countries can only use those grounds which are allowed by their own national legislation. The development of appropriate national legislation is therefore crucial.

TRIPs further states that the conditions under which a compulsory license is granted should be regulated in accordance with the TRIPs Agreement (Article 31), under a number of conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Examples of CL provisions in some important countries:

China: Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib Tosylate 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’.

U.S: Patent law does not provide for CL, which is allowed under the antitrust law. US has been granting CL to remedy anti-competitive practices and for governmental use, including national security.

Canada:  The country introduced CL for drugs, way back in 1923. Canada has granted number of CLs and a robust generic pharmaceutical industry exists in that country.

France: French law authorizes CL when medicines are “only available to the public in insufficient quantity or quality or at abnormally high prices”.

Israel: In Israel a CL can be granted, “if it is necessary to assure the public of a reasonable quantity of a product capable of being used as a medicament, to manufacture a medicament or a patented process for manufacturing a medicament.”

Brazil:  The country will grant CL in cases of “national emergency or public interest, declared by the Federal Executive Authorities. A temporary nonexclusive compulsory license can be granted if necessary. Brazil defines Public Health interest to include “public health protection, satisfying nutritional requirements, protection of the environment and other areas of fundamental importance to the technological or social and economic development of the country.”

Very few CLs granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions for the grant of CL in many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date. The details are as follows:

Country Medicine CL granted in
Israel Hepatitis B Vaccine October 1995
Italy Imipenem (antibiotic) June 2005
Italy Sumatripan Succinate (migraine) February 2006
Canada Oseltamivir (influenza) July 2006
Brazil Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS) May 2007
Thailand Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer) January 2008
India Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer) March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

India joins the league in 2012:

Indian Patent Office granted a Compulsory License (CL) for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer Corporation) to Hyderabad based Natco Pharma Limited under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act. Nexavar is used for treatment for liver and kidney cancer.

The Compulsory License, first of its kind granted in India, enables Natco to sell the drug at a price not exceeding Rs. 8880 (US$ 178 approx.) for a pack of 120 tablets (one month’s therapy) against Rs. 284,428 (US$ 5,690 approx.) being the cost of Nexavar sold by Bayer before the CL was granted to Natco. The license is valid till the expiry of the patent on 2021.

The order on CL also makes it obligatory for Natco to supply the drug free of cost to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year.

The grant of CL generated adverse impact from many developed nations of the world, as was expected by many.

However, welcoming the order Natco reportedly commented, “This opens up a new avenue of availability of life savings drugs at an affordable price to the suffering masses in India.”

Does grant of CL for non-NLEM products make sense in India?

Currently all government healthcare initiatives in India are focused on ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, be it drug price control, free distribution of medicines to all through government hospitals/health centers or even much hyped, ‘Universal Health Coverage’ proposal.

In this situation, another school of thought says that by granting CL to Natco for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer), which does not fall under NLEM 2011, hasn’t India diluted its focus on essential drugs? More so, when NLEM 2011 features quite a good number of anti-cancer drugs, as well.

The other side of the argument: Is CL a viable solution to improve access in the developing nations?

International Policy Network (IPN) in an article titled, “Compulsory licensing no solution to health problems in poor countries – say experts from India, Argentina, Canada and South Africa” stated that patents and other forms of Intellectual Property (IP) are an essential component in economic development of any emerging economy, which needs to be well protected by the governments.

The article further opines that any form of interference with IP by the grant of CL or even price controls will undermine investments and cause more harm than good. The paper, therefore, calls for stronger protection of IP across the world.

Yet another paper  titled, “The WTO Decision on Compulsory Licensing – Does it enable import of medicines for developing countries with grave public health problems”, states that flexibility of innovator companies to adjust prices according to purchasing power of the people of different countries is constrained by the following two reasons:

  • A genuine risk that medicines sold at lower prices in the developing countries will be re-exported to high income markets.
  • Many high income developed countries also regulate the prices of medicines at the national level. There is a high risk that these countries will use prices in the developing markets as external reference pricing.

Thus, the author argues, in both the above situations, patented medicine prices will be undermined in the most important markets, making it difficult for the research-based companies to use prices only of high income countries to fund R&D costs for the discovery of new medicines.

Fostering innovation in India:

The healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations across the world, not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options.

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, the creation of an innovation friendly ecosystem in India calls for a radical change in our mind-set.

From process innovation to product innovation, from replicating molecules to creating new molecules- a robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation, and India is no exception. It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner its 12th 5 year plan.

However, the question that is being raised now: will frequent grant of CL vitiate the attempt of the government to create an innovative culture within the pharmaceutical industry in India. 

CL will not arrest increasing ‘OoP’ for healthcare in India:

While India is making reasonable strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in proving healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population with ballooning ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of around 78 per cent of its population.

This is mainly because of the following reasons:

  1. Absence of ‘Universal Health Coverage’
  2. Lack of proper healthcare financing and insurance system for all strata of society
  3. Difficulty in managing the cost of healthcare even when the country is providing generic drugs for a sizable part of the world market

One finds some good initiatives though, for population Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and hears about the success of ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural areas. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country.

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to chronic non-infectious diseases, OOP on healthcare will increase further.

Currently health insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. Ideally, medical insurance schemes in India should also cover domiciliary or in-patient treatment costs and perhaps loss of income too, along with hospitalization costs, if India wants to bring down the OoP for its population or at least till such time the ambitious ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project gets translated into reality.

Greater focus of the Government in these areas, many believe, will help increasing access to essential medicines very significantly in India, rather than frequently granting CL, as is being envisaged by many, especially for drugs, which are outside NLEM 2011.

Access to patented medicines unlikely to be addressed effectively despite frequent grant of CL: 

As we know, access to healthcare comprises not just medicines but more importantly healthcare infrastructure like, doctors, paramedics, diagnostics, healthcare centers and hospitals . In India the demand for these services has outstripped supply. There is a huge short fall in ‘Healthcare Manpower’ of the country as demonstrated in the following table:

Target

Actual

Shortfall %
Doctors

1,09,484

26,329

76
Specialists

58,352

6,935

88
Nurses

1,38,623

65,344

53
Radiographers

14,588

2,221

85
Lab Technicians

80,308

16,208

80

Source: Rural Health Statistics 2011 in 12th Plan draft chapter

Thus, there is an urgent need to have a holistic approach with the ‘Universal Healthcare’ in developing adequate healthcare infrastructure, efficient delivery system for medical supplies and creation of a talent pool of healthcare professionals and paramedics, to ensure access to healthcare for all the citizens of the country.

Without all these how will the diseases be diagnosed and the patients be treated for ailments, frequent grant of  CL not withstanding? 

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the prices of medicines in general and the patented drugs in particular will continue to remain highly sensitive in most parts of the world, if not all, which some astute Global CEOs of the pharmaceutical majors have already contemplated.

One of these Global CEOs very aptly commented, “Pharmaceutical industry, too, on its part, needs to metamorphose to strike a balance in delivering affordable and innovative medicines. It is unacceptable to hear of the US$1billion cost to develop a drug, which includes the cost of failure. We need to fail less often and succeed more often.”

He reiterated, “Pharma companies need to understand that just because you have a patent, people don’t suddenly have money in their pockets, or can afford American prices.”

In the same context another Global CEO said, “Our strategy is really to have affordable medicines because in emerging markets you do not have government reimbursement. So you have to have medicines that people can afford to pay for.…I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it.”

Keeping all these developments in view, as I said before, the contentious issue of the price of medicines cannot just be wished away across the world, which is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.

This is irrespective of the fact whether the country provides likes of ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or is driven by OoP expenditure by the majority of its population. Gone are those days, as articulated by the above Global CEOs, when a single global price for a product will be acceptable by all the nations across the world. India seems to be moving to this direction cautiously but steadily. 

It appears, responsible pricing and effective working of patents are the only answers to respond to the CL issue in India.

Thus, I reckon, it does make sense for India to have the relevant provisions of CL in its Patent Act, not just to rectify any type of market failure, but also to discourage any possible abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder in the country, as mentioned above.

However, it is also important for India to examine the potential negative impact of CL to foster innovation in the country and the global ramification of the same, including attraction of more ‘Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)’, which has been universally proved to be so important for the economic progress of any country, like India and China.

That said, while none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to affordable life-saving essential medicines, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of CL by the Indian Patent Office, as enumerated above by Natco et al, will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to essential medicines on a longer term basis in India.The decision for grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken in India only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

As enumerated above, the use of CL as a common tool to improve access to medicines could prove to be counterproductive in the long run for India.

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.

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.