Early Signal of Metamorphosis in the Global Pharmaceutical Product Patent Regime

Posted on September 17, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Before enactment of the Indian Patents Act (amended) 2005, it was widely reported that to protect ‘Public Health Interest’, the Parliament of India has ensured inclusion of a number of ‘safeguards’ including checks on ‘ever-greening’ of pharmaceutical patents and broader provisions for the grant of ‘Compulsory License’ in India.

Such provisions in the Patents Act of any country were almost non-existent at that time and eventually got translated into an eye of a storm spreading across the continents.

Most probably, none could fathom at that juncture, the magnitude of profound impact of the steps taken by the Indian Parliament on the global pharmaceutical product patent regime over a period of time, slowly but steadily. On the contrary, many expected that because of intense global pressure, at least, some of these ‘safeguards’ will subsequently be amended in favor of the innovators.

Instead and surprisingly, despite such intense pressure, especially from the U.S. and Europe, some countries gradually started following similar direction as India did in 2005.

Support of the Experts Group:

Similarly, support of the global expert groups on the above ‘safeguard’ provisions of the Indian Patent Act 2005 has now started surfacing.

This month, September 10, 2012 edition of ‘The Lancet’ featured an article titled, “India’s patent laws under pressure.” Supporting the above safeguard provisions the authors commented as follows:

“The TRIPS Agreement does not limit the grounds on which compulsory licenses can be granted, and does not prevent patent applicants from having to demonstrate enhanced efficacy for their allegedly new and useful inventions. There are many problems facing access to and rational use of medicines in India but the provisions within the country’s patent laws, if more extensively and properly applied, should help rather than hinder such access. India’s laws and experiences could provide a useful example for low-income and middle-income countries worldwide.

Interestingly, The Times of India dated September 14, 2012 in its editorial commented that

“Instead of being browbeaten by foreign multinationals and pressure from the US government, Indian drug policies should be designed to nudge them along this path, while protecting patients and the generic-drug industry. Indian pharma, like Chinese manufacturing, is a potent global force. In the 21st century we ought to move beyond rather than strengthen a system where brown and black people are denied access to life saving drugs.”

Even more recently on September 15, 2012, the business daily of India, The Hindu Business Line reported that dismissing the stay petition of Bayer on the Compulsory License (CL) granted for its Sorafenib Tosylate to Natco, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) comprising its Chairman, Justice Prabha Sridevan, and member D. P. S. Parmar, in the order passed on September 14, 2012 said that, “if stay is granted, it will jeopardize the interest of public who are in the need of the drug. The appellant has not made out any case for granting a stay.”

On the price of Bayer’s Nexavar, Justice Prabha Sridevan further stated that “Selling at Rs 2.80 lakh (US$ 5,100 approx.) can by no stretch of imagination satisfy the requirement of the public.”

Capturing an emerging trend with some examples:

This trend for all practical purpose started with India and may be captured as follows:

India:

Amendment of the India Patents Act in January, 2005, as mentioned above, may in all practical purpose be construed as the beginning of the changing process.

Philippines:

For a long time Philippines remained a market of the highest price medicines as compared to most other Asian countries. However, effective July 4, 2008, the country enacted a law known as “Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act” reportedly to protect public health interest. The law:

Directed amendment of the Patent Act to limit the monopoly of the patent owners by expanding the scope for non-patentable inventions and redefining inventive step provision, similar to section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act 2005
Allowed parallel importation of drugs already released in the international market as limitation to patent rights
Provided for the use, by the government or its authorized third party, of the invention even without the agreement of the patent owner, in cases of national emergency, circumstances of extreme urgency, public non-commercial use or inadequately met demand
Added ‘inadequately met demand’ as a ground for the grant of Compulsory License.

Taiwan:

In 2009, ‘Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (TIPO)’ amended the Patent Act, again for public health interest, in the following areas, among others:

Patentability
Public health
Compulsory license

China:

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has announced that the 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.

Argentina:

Recently Argentina reportedly has come out with an amendment in their patent law for public health interest and has put in place new guidelines for patents, which besides others, include stringent provisions on patentability quite similar to the Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act 2005.

Another signal from Asia though disease specific:

From May 29 – 31, 2012, over 90 representatives of government, academia, civil society and the United Nations assembled at the Regional Consultation and Planning Workshop in Bangkok to deliberate on “Use of TRIPS Flexibilities and Access to Affordable ARVs in Asia.”

The participants felt that in the days ahead there may be several public health related issues where the governments will require making exceptions in form of sovereign decisions to Intellectual Property (IP) Rights to save millions of precious lives.

A close watch for Public Health Interest in South Africa:

It has recently been reported that in South Africa, health activists together with other stakeholders of the local pharmaceutical industry are maintaining close vigil over the possibly amendment of the country’s patent laws by the government. They argue that no such decision to be taken, which can jeopardize access to cheaper generic medicines by the marginalized section of the society.

A review by UNDP:

In a paper titled, “Five years into the Product Patent Regime: India’s response”, published by United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the authors reiterated that in compliance with TRIPS agreement, India re-introduced the product patent protection in pharmaceuticals from January 1, 2005 by amending its Patent Laws. This development led to serious concerns at that time about the continuing ability of Indian generic companies to supply low cost and high quality medicines across the world. However, these concerns were taken seriously by the Indian Parliament, which utilized flexibilities available under TRIPS to help securing the availability, affordability and accessibility of such medicines in an uninterrupted manner.

The authors concluded by re-emphasizing their views that the Indian patent law contains robust built-in safeguards to eliminate a significant amount of ‘patent barriers’ to reasonably affordable low cost and high quality generic medicines, especially for the poor.

Opposite school of thoughts:

In a paper titled “Strengthening the Patent Regime: Benefits for Developing countries – A Survey”, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, the authors concluded that innovativeness of developing countries has now reached a stage where it is positively impacted by a robust Intellectual Property regime. The authors further stated that a robust patent ecosystem is among other important policy variables, which affect inflow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the developing nations.

Another paper titled, “The Impact of the International Patent system in the Developing Countries”, published by the ‘World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’, though a bit dated of October 2003, states that a robust national patent system in developing countries contributes to their national socioeconomic development. The paper also highlights the experience of some developing nations, which found usefulness of a strong patent system in creation of wealth for the nation.

Conclusion:

Currently, the issue of giving priority to the public health dimension of TRIPS has become a subject of a raging debate across the world.

As a result, most of the developing countries tend to feel the need of meeting only the minimum standard as specified in the TRIPS Agreement, despite strong opposition mainly from the developed countries of the world.

As indicated in the UNDP paper quoted above, many experts are increasingly highlighting that in order to protect public health interest across the world, the Doha declaration has been a watershed agreement within the global product patent regime. It effectively plugged many loop holes providing adequate flexibilities to the sovereign governments to ensure improved access to medicines, especially for the marginalized section of the society and still being able to encourage, protect and reward innovation in a true win-win situation for all.

The examples as cited above would possibly indicate that gradually many more countries will avail the flexibilities as provided in the Doha declaration, in the years ahead. Though these are very early days, the emerging sequence of global events does send a signal of metamorphosis in the global pharmaceutical product patent regime, paving the way of yet another paradigm shift in not too distant future.

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.

Counterfeit Drugs and ACTA: Should the global menace related to ‘Public Health and Safety’ be mixed-up with Intellectual Property Rights?

Posted on July 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Here in this article, I am talking about drugs or medicines, which you may ultimately land up into buying, quite innocently though, against your doctor’s prescriptions, without having an inkling that these drugs can push you into serious health hazards, instead of addressing your ailments, as your doctor would have desired to.

These are ‘Counterfeit’, ‘Fake’, ‘Spurious’ or ‘Sub-standard’ drugs, in whatever name we may call them. Such substances in the guise of drugs are therapeutically harmful for the patients and are a global menace. This needs to be addressed urgently and with a military precision.

However, public health policy experts have been arguing since long that the issues of such dimension related to critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ needs to be addressed expeditiously by all concerned with focus, without mixing it up with any other commercial considerations or IP related matter, as is being done by some vested interests across the world. India, in this case as well, is of course no exception.

Some reports:

Following are examples of some reports regarding deliberations on this critical issue:

A new study published recently in ‘The Lancet’ reported that 7% of anti-malarial drugs tested in India are of poor quality and many were found fake.
A February, 2012 report of ‘The National Initiative against Piracy and Counterfeiting’ of FICCI highlighted that the share of fake/counterfeit medicines is estimated at 15% – 20% of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.
Another recent report of the US Customs and Border Protection highlighted, “India and Pakistan both made it to top 10 source countries this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharma seizures accounted for 86% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

However, in this context, it is worth mentioning that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry along with the Government has been continuously questioning the original source of fake drugs with prominent ‘made in India labels’ on the outer packaging material. It will not be difficult for many to recall that a couple of years ago consignments of ‘counterfeit or fake drugs’ wearing ‘made in India’ labels were confiscated by the drug regulator of Nigeria (Africa), which after a thorough investigation were found to have originated from China.

A contrarian report – CDSCO Survey:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010, which shows that the issue is not as acute as it is shown above:

Year	Drugs samples tested	% of sub-standard drugs	% of spurious drugs	Prosecution for crime	Persons arrested
2006 – 07	34738	5.8	0.22	115	12
2007 – 08	39117	6.2	0.19	120	122
2008 – 09	45145	5.7	0.34	220	133
2009 -10	39248	4.95	0.29	138	147
TOTAL	158248	5.66	0.26	593	414

This ‘Pan-India survey report of CDSCO’ shows that from 2006 to 2010 the percentage of both ‘Substandard’ and ‘Spurious’ drugs were quite low in India.

However, the more worrying fact, as seen in the report is, the arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime are also abysmally low in India.

IP related ‘counterfeit’ drugs are relatively smaller in numbers:

WHO has identified following types of counterfeit medicines:
• Without active ingredients: 32% • Wrong ingredients: 21.4% • Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2% • Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6% • High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5% • “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat poison or road paint”: 2.3%

In addition, 50% of medicines purchased online from illegal internet are ‘counterfeit or fake’

From the above data, it appears that IP related ‘counterfeit or fake’ drugs are relatively small in number.

‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’:

The subject gets more complicated when such critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ related issue is leveraged to further strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and address commercial issues in different ways.

One such initiative was ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’. This was signed mostly by the developed countries of the world in October 2011.

ACTA is a plurilateral international trade agreement aimed at countering more efficiently not only the menace of counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet, but also Intellectual Property (IP) related issues, including stringent enforcement of product patents.

This agreement was primarily designed to form a new forum, outside the existing ones, like for example United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and was signed by Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. However, the agreement has not been formally approved by any of them, as yet.

According to European Commission, “ACTA is an international trade agreement that will help countries work together to tackle more effectively large-scale IPR violations. Citizens will benefit from ACTA because it will help protect Europe’s raw material – innovations and ideas.”

Two aspects of ACTA definition:

As per ACTA definition, there are two aspects for a medicine being termed as ‘Counterfeit’, which are as follows:

‘Health and safety’ issues, arising out of therapeutically harmful medicines
Violation of IP rights like, patents, trademark and design

It raises more questions than answers:

ACTA definition, as mentioned above, has led to confusion mainly because, if a patent infringing product is termed ‘counterfeit or fake’ in one country, what will then the same product be called in another country where the molecule has gone off-patent?

Moreover, countries which consider such types of drugs ‘fake’ or ‘counterfeit’, will have the full right to destroy even the in-transit consignments containing such products, not only causing economic loss to the exporter, but also jeopardizing public health interest at the destination countries. Just to site an example, in not too distant past, consignments of generic medicines exported from India to Brazil were seized at the European ports

Thus, many experts feel that ACTA poses a potential risk for global access to generic medicines endangering public health interest, as it could restrict free passage of such drugs through many ports of the world on IP grounds, as happened more than once in the past.

‘Generic medicines’ to be left unharmed:

In this context, Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for ‘Access to Essential Medicines’ wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

Ongoing WHO debate:

‘Intellectual Property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported that:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ there is a ‘hidden agenda’ against generics for countries like Brazil.”

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generic medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

However, as reported by ‘The International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)’, after the Government of India had taken it up strongly with the EU, the issue of confiscation of in-transit consignments of generic drugs has since been resolved.

Three emerging views:

Arising out of all these, there are following three different clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:

1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators of the developing countries are not really very keen to effectively address and resolve the global issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’.
2. The generic companies and the drug regulators of the developing countries feel that the problem is not as acute as it is being projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy campaigns are trying to exploit the sentiment against spurious and harmful drugs to fight against generic medicines and cheaper parallel imports.
3. Some other important stakeholders, including a section of NGOs claim that an intense ‘Public Health and Safety’ related sentiment is being leveraged by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend IPR issues to “patients’ safety” related concerns, for vested interest.

The role of WHO:

The leadership role of the WHO is extremely important to effectively eliminate the global menace of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ for ‘Public Health and Safety’. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing threat of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier global organization to address such critical issues effectively, especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a more proactive and stellar role in future.

A Rational Approach:

The groups opposing ACTA recommend the following approaches to address the menace of ‘Counterfeit or Fake or Spurious or Harmful Medicines’:

Address the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ by strengthening regulatory systems, related laws of the country and the stakeholder awareness program. In case of India, recently amended Drugs and Cosmetics Act needs to be properly implemented in letter and spirit.
The issue of violation of IP should be dealt with through effective enforcement of IP laws of the country.
There should not be any mix-up between ‘Public Health and Safety’ and ‘IP related issues’, in any way or form.

Countries already approached WHO:

Earlier, along with countries like Indonesia and Thailand, India could make the WHO realize that mixing up the above two issues could pose serious impediment for the supply of cheaper generic medicines to the marginalized sections of the society, globally.

Weak regulatory enforcement lead to more ‘Counterfeit/Fake’ drugs:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India alone. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus, it is generally believed that the issue of ‘counterfeit drugs’ is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is rather weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, ‘in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits’.

Conclusion:

In the meeting of the TRIPS Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) held in June, 2012, developed countries continued to reiterate that ‘Counterfeiting of Drugs’ being a critical issue should be deliberated upon by the council, expeditiously.

However, emerging countries like, Brazil, India and China strongly opposed this view by reemphasizing that in the name of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ issues of IPR violations should not be clubbed with ‘Public Health and Safety’. They argued that IPR violation should in no way be confused with sub-standard drugs or therapeutically harmful medicines and any attempt to discuss the menace of harmful or substandard medicines at the WTO platform will be improper.

Developing nations, in general, have already alleged in various global forums that being unsuccessful in their efforts to use ACTA in making the IP environment even more stringent, the developed countries are now trying to use the WTO to achieve the same objective.

The debate continues and the moot question still lingers: Why should the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ get mixed-up with ‘Intellectual Property (IP)’ related problems?

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on June 18, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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.

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

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Currently both China and India, the two most populous nations of the world are also the front runners of the global economy in terms of the pace of GDP growth. The economies of the two countries are greatly influenced by their respective sociopolitical environment. However, the economy of China is more robust ranking second in the world, against eleven of India. The dragon is indeed breathing fire.

A comparison of the economy of the two countries, as reported by ‘MapsofIndia.com’ updated in July 2011, is as follows:

Facts	India	China
GDP	US$1.31 trillion	US$ 4.90 trillion
GDP growth	8.90%	9.60%
Per capital GDP	US$1124	US$7,518
Inflation	7.48 %	5.1%
Labor Force	467 million	813.5 million
Unemployment	9.4 %	4.20 %
Fiscal Deficit	5.5%	21.5%
Foreign Direct Investment	US$12.40 billion	US$9.7 billion
Gold Reserves	15%	11%
Foreign Exchange Reserves	US$2.41 billion	US$2.65 trillion
World Prosperity Index	88th Position	58th Position
Mobile Users	842 million	687.71 million
Internet Users	123.16 million	81 million.

Global pharmaceutical ranking:

As reported by IMS, in global ranking, China was ninth largest pharmaceutical market against thirteenth of India in 2004, became fifth largest in 2009 against thirteenth of India and is expected to be the third largest by 2014 against tenth of India, growing at a much faster pace.

	2004 Rank		2009 Rank		2014 Rank
1	United States	1	United States	1	United States
2	Japan	2	Japan	2	Japan
3	France	3	Germany	3	China
4	Germany	4	France	4	Germany
5	Italy	5	China	5	France
6	United Kingdom	6	Italy	6	Brazil
7	Canada	7	Canada	7	Italy
8	Spain	8	Spain	8	Canada
9	China	9	United Kingdom	9	Spain
10	Brazil	10	Brazil	10	India
11	Mexico	11	Russia	11	Russia
12	Australia	12	Mexico	12	United Kingdom
13	South Korea	13	India	13	Venezuela
14	India	14	Australia	14	Turkey
15	Netherlands	15	Turkey	15	South Korea

Source: IMS Health MIDAS, Market Prognosis September 2010; Market size ranking in constant US$

Healthcare coverage:

In China, out of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million are covered by health insurance, another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance.

Against these statistics of China, in India total number of population who have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.1% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China in this respect mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure and regulatory challenges by China.

Commitment to globalization:

A very high level of commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional global hub for pharmaceutical R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is now paying rich dividends.

Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India (GoI) also expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved with just good intent of investments of couple of million US$ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, as announced by the DoP earlier.

A strong commitment of the GoI to hasten regulatory reform processes with visible action will be the deciding success factor. IPR regime in the pharmaceutical industry has been put in place, but an appropriate to foster innovation in the country is yet to be created.

Healthcare Infrastructure:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that China’s infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to accelerate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country.

It has been reported that China has not only better healthcare infrastructure as compared to India, but they are also more open to of foreign trade and investments to improve these further in their country.

R&D Comparison:

Talent Pool and no. of Patents granted:

According to WIPO, China has better R&D talent pool and grants more patent per year than India as follows:

	India	China
R&D Talent Pool	45,000	56,000
Patents Granted (2008-09)*	16,061	48,814

*Patent Granrted in India during 2009-10:6168

Source: FE Bureau / WIPO / IPO

Scientific Publications:

India also lags behind China in the number of scientific publications as follows:

	Pre 2000 (A)	Post 2000 (B)	B/A*
India	3,04,737	4,98,394	1.64
China	2,30,154	19,94,706	8.67

*Multiple of Post-2000 over Pre 2000

Between pre-2000 and post-2000 era, China’s count of scientific publications rose more than eight times compared to India’s 1.6 times. (Source: Search on Scopus Sciverse (Database from Elsevier)

Based on ‘WIPO PCT’ applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China.

Biology Research:

China is taking faster strides in the Biology Research area as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Only about five companies with proven skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research focused on bioinformatics and bio-chips

3. Limited biology talent pool owing to historic focus on generics1. Established skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research in stem cells, bio-chips, and gene sequencing

3. Expanding biology talent pool

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Clinical trials:

In the area of clinical trial, though by amending the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in line with ICH GCP, India has already put in place the Good Clinical Practices (GCP), China has, on the other hand, brought its GCP, GLP, and GMP standards in line with ICH guidelines.

May be because of all these reasons ‘A.T. Kearney’ in its ‘Country Attractiveness Index’ (CAI) for clinical trials has given 6.10 to China against 5.58 to India.

BCG compared India with China in the Clinical Trial space as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Experienced CROs with full service range and output of similar quality to that of developed markets.

3. Limited FDA approved hospitals

4. Shorter trial approval times than in China

5.Uneven infrastructure and shortage of clinical research assistants

Experienced CROs and growing vendor pool providing full spectrum of services
High quality FDA-approved hospitals
Low-cost and efficient enrollment compared to the US and Europe
Trial approvals lengthy and complex

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Despite all these, both India and China pose challenges to both global and the local pharmaceutical players in dealing with subjects of wide cultural diversity within the country besides illiteracy and poverty. Many cases of conflict between ethics and natural justice have been reported from both countries during recruiting process of the subjects for clinical trial.

Pharmaceutical outsourcing:

In terms of attractiveness for outsourcing among the emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, India and China are outpacing others with their cutting edge offering of high quality services at lower cost together with large pool of skilled manpower.

India has the potential to be a contender of supremacy for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types with all the required success ingredients. However, putting these ingredients together for effective use to make it happen has indeed become a real challenge.

On the other hand China is racing ahead to effectively avail the global opportunities and in that process fast distancing itself from India, widening the competitive performance gap between the two countries. Brain drain:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Where India is a high flier:

Chemistry Research:

India is globally considered as a more mature place for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Aurigene, Advinus, Divis Lab and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

BCG report, ‘Looking Eastward’ compared India with China in the Chemistry Research area as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Large pool of vendors with full services and track record of strong capabilities

2. Generally better IP protection than in China

3. Trend toward project based alliances and emerging build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts

4. Vast pool of skilled and low cost chemists

Capabilities residing mostly with government institutes; only a few small private companies with a track record
Established basic chemistry skills moving to more complex offerings, but no end to end capabilities
Large and growing pool of raw talent, but limited English language skills still an issue

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Earlier reform in China: It is important to mention that healthcare reform process started much earlier in China. The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that time China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centers, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on economies of scale, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many others, will vindicate this point.

On other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20 percent of global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Even in ANDA and DMF filings, India is currently ahead of China.

Conclusion:

While comparing India with China one should also take into consideration that not only the sociopolitical structure of India and China are quite different, but the difference exists also in their commerce and industry related political decision making process.

Moreover, the average age of Chinese population is much more than Indians and continues to increase rapidly. The factor of aging population may have an adverse impact on the overall productivity of their people in the coming years constraining the economic growth of China. In contrast, the percentage of young working people in India is expected to keep increasing through 2030, offering a very critical demographic advantage to the country in the years ahead.

Though China will continue to have aging population and India the younger ones, both countries will have to deploy greater resources to cater to the growing healthcare needs for altogether different reasons. The net gainer will indeed be the pharmaceutical industry in both the countries.

That said, just a wishful thinking of the Government of India, sans expeditious and prudent regulatory and other related policy reforms, will helplessly make India watching the gap between the pharmaceutical industry of the two countries fast widening, making the dragon keep breathing fire, unabated.

By: Tapan J Ray

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Posted on March 5, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In not too distant past, the stocks of the global pharmaceutical companies, by and large, used to be categorized as ‘blue-chips’ for their high return to investors, as compared to many other sectors.

Unfortunately, the situation has changed significantly since then. Most of those large players now appear to be under tremendous pressure for excellence in performance.

The issues of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with patent expiries, price and margin pressures from payors’ group in the developed world, have already started haunting the research based pharmaceutical companies and are assuming larger proportions day by day.

The situation continues to be grim:

Collective impact of all the above factors has prompted the major pharma players to resort to huge cost cutting exercises leading to employee layoffs, quite often, in a massive scale.

According to a study done by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., which was also quoted in the Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011, 297,650 employees were laid off by the global pharma industry between the years 2000 and 2011.

Year	Number of Job cuts
2000	2,453
2001	4,736
2002	11,488
2003	28,519
2004	15,640
2005	26,300
2006	15,638
2007	31,732
2008	43,014
2009	61,109
2010	53,636
Total	297,650

Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. ©/Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011

Top of the list layoffs:

Forbes, Pharma and Healthcare, June 10, 2011 reported ‘top of the list layoffs’ in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry from 2004 to 2011. This number reported to be comparable to as many people working at the three largest drug companies combined namely, Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline GSK in 2011.

Company	No of layoffs
Pfizer	58,071
Merck	44,400
Johnson & Johnson	9,900
Eli Lilly	5,500
Bristol-Myers Squibb	4,600

More recently ‘Mail online’ dated February 3, 2012 reported that ‘Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announces 7,300 job losses as it pares back staff to save money’. Immediately, thereafter, on February 24, 2012 Reuters reported that ‘German drugs and chemicals group Merck KGaA has announced plans for a cost-cutting program across all its businesses that may include job cuts’.

The old paradigm is no longer relevant:

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’ of U.K had conducted a study with a sizable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional expertise like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas. The report highlighted that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic option.

Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Collaborative Research to overcome R&D productivity crisis: The cost of each new drug approval has now reached a humongous proportion and is still increasing. This spiraling R&D cost does not seem to be sustainable any longer. Thus there emerges a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors. Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the ‘risk and reward’ of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction. Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy and perhaps may also not be acceptable to many large global players as on date, but they are not absolutely uncommon either. The world has already witnessed such collaborative research, especially in the sectors, like Information Technology (IT). Thus, it remains quite possible, as the industry moves on, that the world will have opportunities to take note of initiation of various cost effective collaborative R&D projects to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the global healthcare space. Greater access to fast growing markets: The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government on the ground of ‘affordability of medicines’ in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing/margin pressure for the pharmaceutical players.

These critical emerging developments can be effectively negotiated with significant increase in market access, especially in the emerging economies of the world, with each country specific business strategies. ‘One size fits all’ type of standardized approach, currently adopted by some large global players in the markets like India, may not be able to fetch significant dividend in the years ahead.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the payors, doctors and patients will increasingly look for, much beyond the physical products/brands, would prove to be the cutting edge for the winners for greater market access in the emerging economies.

Current business processes need significant re-engineering: Top management teams of many global pharma companies have already started evaluating the relevance of sole dependance on the current R&D based pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus.

Only treatment of diseases may no longer be considered enough with an offering of just various types of medications. Added value with effective non-therapeutic/incremental disease management/prevention initiatives and appropriately improving quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process in the emerging markets. Continuous innovation required not just in R&D, but across the value chain: Continuous innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain, beyond pharmaceutical R&D, is the most critical success factor. The ability to harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be a critical part of the business strategy of the pharmaceutical companies in the new paradigm. Avoidance of silos, integrating decision making processes: More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Creation of silos, duplication of processes and empire building have long been a significant trend, especially, in the larger pharmaceutical companies. Part of a better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient deployment of investments and other resources for organizational value creation and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications, organizational flab producing and will no longer deliver differential value to the stakeholders. Finding newer ways of customer engagement: Growing complexity of the business environment is making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communication channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors, patients and other stakeholders and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required. Questioning perceived ‘fundamentals’ of the old paradigm:

Despite a paradigm shift in the business environment, fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry appears to have been attempting to address these critical issues over a decade, has not changed much.

In their attempt to unleash the future growth potential, the pharmaceutical players are still moving around the same old dictums like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, satisfying customer needs, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building blockbuster brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few. Unfortunately, despite all such resource intensive initiatives, over a period of time, nothing seems to have changed fundamentally, excepting, probably, some sort of arrest in the rate of declining process.

Conclusion:

Such incremental focus over a long period of time on the same areas, far from being able to ride the tide of change effectively, does ring an alarm bell to some experts. More so, when all these initiatives continue to remain their prime catalysts for change even today to meet new challenges of a different paradigm altogether.

The moot question therefore remains: what are the companies achieving from all heavy investments being continuously made in these areas since long…and why have they not been able to address the needs of the new ball game for business excellence, effectively, thus far?

When results are not forthcoming despite having taken all such measures, many of them have no options but to resort to heavy cost cutting measures including job losses to protect the profit margin, as much as one possibly can.

If the issues related to declining rate of global pharmaceutical business performance is not addressed sooner moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’, one can well imagine what would its implication be, in the endeavor towards arresting continuous job losses through business excellence, in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of such biologics could not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company	Location	Biosimilar mAbs	Development Status
BioXpress	Switzerland	16	Preclinical
Gene Techno Science	Japan	6	Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla	India	5	Preclinical
PlantForm	Canada	3	Preclinical
BioCad	Russia	3	Preclinical
Celltrion	South Korea	2	Phase 3
LG Life Sciences	South Korea	2	Preclinical
Gedeon Richter	Hungary	2	Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma	Switzerland	1	Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical	South Korea	1	Preclinical
PharmaPraxis	Brazil	1	Preclinical
Probiomed	Mexico	1	Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics	South Korea	1	Preclinical
Novartis	Switzerland	1	Phase 2
Teva	Israel	1	Phase 2
Zenotech	India	1	Phase 3
Spectrum	US	1	Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan	India/US	1	Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
Cost containment measures of various governments
Aging population
Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
Recent establishment of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) etc.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

The barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, by and large, much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

Government support in India:

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Posted on September 26, 2011 by Tapan Ray

In today’s globalized economy maintaining Supply Chain Security (SCS), especially in the pharmaceutical sector across the world, is more critical than ever before. We have many instances of SCS being seriously breached, not only in the emerging pharmaceutical markets but also in the developed markets of the world.

Global examples of serious SCS violations:

Following are some at random examples of serious SCS violations globally in the recent times:

In 2007, over 300 people died in Panama in Central America after consuming a cough medication containing diethylene glycol, which was labeled as glycerin. The adulterant diethylene glycol was sourced from China and was relabeled as glycerin by a middleman in Spain, as reported by the media.

In March 2008, the US FDA prompted by around 81 drug related deaths in the USA, announced a large scale recall of Heparin injection, a well-known blood thinner from Baxter Healthcare suspecting contamination of a raw material sourced from China. Standard technology used by Baxter could not detect the contaminant, which the regulator considered as a deliberate adulteration. The contaminant was eventually identified as an over sulfated derivative of chondroitin sulfate, which costs a fraction of original heparin derivative. The ‘Heparin tragedy’ raised, possibly for the first time, the need of working out an algorithm to put in place a robust system for ‘supply chain security’. This need has now become critical as many pharmaceutical players, including those in India, are increasingly outsourcing the API, other ingredients and almost entire logistics from third parties.

‘Business Standard’ dated August 24, 2011 reported that Ranbaxy Laboratories and the US health regulator are negotiating a settlement to lift a ban on the sale of the drugs produced at 2 of the company’s plants in India, which could involve payments and fines exceeding $1 billion. This ban, as the report says, dates back to 2008, when the US regulator banned 30 generic drugs produced by the company at its Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) and Paonta Sahib and Batamandi unit in Himachal Pradesh, citing gross violations of approved manufacturing norms.

‘Business Ethics’ – the Magazine of Corporate Responsibility reported, “GSK facility in Puerto Rico suffered from long standing problems of product mix-ups, which caused tablets of one drug type and strength to be commingled with tablets of another drug type and/or strength in the same bottle…the subsidiary’s manufacturing operations failed to ensure that Kytril, an anti-nausea medication, and Bactroban, a topical anti-infection ointment, were free of contamination from micro organisms.” As a result, the US Justice Department reportedly announced, “GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (GSK) and the subsidiary agreed to pay US$750 million to settle charges that between 2001 and 2005 they distributed adulterated drugs made at GSK’s now-closed manufacturing facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico”.

As reported by Reuter, on April 30, 2010 recalled over 43 children’s medicines involving 136 million units and 12 countries in response to complaints from regulators and customers. This recall included liquid versions of Tylenol, Tylenol Plus, Mortin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, as they “may not fully meet the required manufacturing specifications.”

Despite presence of one of the most stringent drug regulators, the issue bothers even the US:

In the wake of all these, ‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported, despite the fact that US now imports more than 80% of APIs and 40% of finished drugs mainly from India, China and elsewhere, the agency conducts far fewer foreign inspections as compared to domestic inspections. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Ann Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

At another conference Ms. Hamburg said, “I think people have no idea in this country and around the world about the vulnerability of things that we count on every day and that we have a system that has big gaps in our protective mechanisms.”

FDA inspects only a fraction of foreign drug plants in the global outsourcing wave:

The investigative arm of US Congress, the Government Accountability Office reported, while US FDA inspected 40% of domestic manufacturing facilities in 2009, it inspected just 11% of the foreign manufacturing facilities, as the later outnumbered the domestic sites since 2008.

	INSPECTIONS BY FDA				ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009
	2007	2008	2009	TOTAL	ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009
India	64	64	59	187	502
China	19	36	52	107	920
Germany	26	34	36	96	228
Italy	28	28	30	86	168
Canada	20	19	35	74	310
U.K.	16	17	32	65	191
France	24	14	26	64	188
Japan	22	17	20	59	207
Switzerland	17	15	18	50	100
Ireland	14	11	19	44	63
All others	83	69	97	249	888
Total	333	324	424	1,081	3,765

NOTE: Most frequently inspected foreign countries. SOURCE: Government Accountability Office.

US FDA’s Counterfeit Drug Initiative:

The initiative includes the following measures:

Secure the product and packaging
Secure the movement of drugs through the supply chain
Secure business transactions
Ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and enforcement
Increase penalties
Heighten vigilance and awareness
International cooperation.

If such instances are available from the developed markets of the world, especially from the US, one can well imagine what is happening in the emerging markets of the world. In the developed markets, at least these are detected and rectifying measures are taken. Unfortunately, in the emerging markets scores of such criminal instances go undetected taking innocent lives of the patients.

Fast growing global outsourcing initiatives have increased the risks by manifold:

Thus even the US FDA acknowledged that fast growth of globalization in drug manufacturing has outstripped the agency’s resource pool for effectively inspecting all overseas outsourcing facilities.

As a result of the outsourcing wave in the US, the number of US FDA approved local drug manufacturing sites in the country is gradually coming down since 2008, with a commensurate increase in the number of foreign sites.

2000		2002		2004		2006		2008a*
Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign	Domestic	Foreign

2625	1150	2700	1500	2900	2000	3000	2500	2480	3800

NOTE: US FDA-registered drug-manufacturing sites with at least one product listed in FDA database. *a Preliminary estimates. SOURCE: US FDA

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Regulators fail to keep pace with the fast growth of global generic industry:

Many feel a shift in prescription towards generic drugs, especially in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the US, is making the regulatory task of the FDA to inspect all drug ingredient suppliers indeed quite challenging.

Currently, 70% of all prescriptions in the US are contributed by the generic drugs, which indeed play an important role to contain the health care cost. However, as an innovative drug goes off patent a single manufacture’s product gets transferred to multiple manufacturers located across the world, making the task of the drug regulator to ensure high quality and safety standard of the same drug extremely challenging.

Conclusion:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively. All pharmaceutical players should realize that an integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company, especially when counterfeiters find ways to bypass any such system very quickly.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which makes many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

Thus a strong corporate governance mechanism in all pharmaceutical companies must ensure, come what may, putting in place a robust SCS system is not compromised in any way… ever… for patients’ sake.

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Tapan Ray

At the very outset, I pay my homage to the departed soul of our industry colleague respected Amar Lulla, former joint managing director of Cipla, who passed away on Friday, April 22, 2011 after a prolonged battle against cancer.

As we know, “Merger and Acquisition (M&A)” is an inorganic growth tool of any business. In this model growth in business operations arise from value creation through mergers or takeovers of other companies, rather than from increase in the company’s own existing business activities.

On April 13, 2011, quoting a study released by Burrill & Co, a noted life sciences investment firm, ‘Fierce Pharma’ reported that “drug makers’ deal making over the past 10 years has utterly and completely failed to build value in the industry. Big Pharma has actually lost almost $1 trillion in value during the past decade.”

Big Pharmas lost value in the past decade through deal making:

Burrill argued: “The drug industry’s 17 most active buyers had a combined market value of $1.57 trillion at the end of 2000. By the end of 2010, that value had shrunk to $1.04 trillion–notwithstanding the $425 billion in acquisitions these companies made during the decade with a total loss of $955 billion.”

The report commented that global pharma majors could not make up non-delivery of innovative products through these acquisitions.

M&As triggered by in-market blockbuster products, were successful in the past:

It was observed that those M&As, which were triggered by in-market blockbuster products were successful in the past. Like for example:

Year	M&A	Product/Products
2000	Pfizer and Warner Lambert	Lipitor
2006	Eli Lilly-ICOS	Cialis
2008	Eli Lilly- ImClone	Erbitux

However, when a company was acquired for products in development or R&D pipelines, it was observed that acquirer could not derive full benefits of their respective inorganic growth plans, as many of those projects did not fructify or could not be continued in the long run for various different reasons. I am not trying to go into those details in this article.

It is usually believed that healthcare companies with diversified interests along with pharmaceuticals and biotech business, like, diagnostic, devices and generic pharmaceuticals encountered much lesser growth pangs in the past. I reckon, it is for this reason, companies like, Abbott, J&J, Roche and Novartis registered overall better business performance than their pure pharmaceutical business counterparts like, Merck, Pfizer etc.

Only future will tell us whether high takeover prices, such as US$ 68 bn paid by Pfizer for Wyeth or US$ 46 bn of Roche for Genentech or US$ 41 bn of Merck for Schering-Plough, mainly to acquire the drug pipelines of the respective companies, can ultimately be justified or not. At this stage, it is indeed extremely difficult to quantify the transaction value of phase III drugs that Pfizer, Roche and Merck acquired with these mega deals.

However, about a couple of years ago ‘Forbes’ in its article titled, “Will Pfizer’s Merger Hurt Innovation?” published in January 26, 2009 commented as follows:

“Between 1998 and now, Pfizer has launched only one medicine with annual sales surpassing $1 billion, despite ploughing more than $60 billion into research and development. That drug, the pain med Lyrica, was already in development at Warner-Lambert when Pfizer bought it.”

Other significant global M&A initiatives in 2010 were as follows:

Global Companies	Value (US $ billion)
Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo	2.6
77% of Alcon (the eye care unit of Nestle) by Novartis	50
Millipore by Merck KGA	6
OSI Pharma by Astellas	4
King Pharma by Pfizer	3.6
BioVex by Amgen	1
Ratiopharm by Teva	5

In addition, work is in progress for some more M&A initiatives, like the hostile bid of US $ 20 billion of Sanofi Aventis for Genzyme in 2011. J&J’s offer of US $2.3 billion for vaccines of Crucell; Valeant’s hostile bid for Cephalon of US $ 5.7 billion, and J&J’s talk with Synthes for an acquisition with US $20 billion.

Emerging markets: the Eldorado:

At the same time, IMS Health reports that emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, significantly driven by generic pharmaceuticals, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during this period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this time.

Probably prompted by this overall market scenario, the global pharmaceutical majors are still trying to keep their heads above water through deal making and various collaborative initiatives. India, being one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical markets, has also started experiencing this consolidation process.

Real consolidation process in India commenced in 2006: The consolidation process in India started gaining momentum from the year 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan, although 2009 witnessed the biggest merger in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, thus far, in value terms, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.6 billion.
This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both the companies with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative products range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also established Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.
Another mega acquisition soon followed:
In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion by the next decade.

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?
Abbott had valued formulations business of Piramal Healthcare at about eight times of sales, which is almost twice of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.”

This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.
In my opinion, considering the fact that not too many attractive acquisition targets are available within the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the valuation of any well performed Indian Pharmaceutical Company will continue to remain high, at least in the short to medium term… and why not, when the domestic pharmaceutical industry is growing so well, consistently?

M&As in India from 2006 to 2010:

Year	Indian Companies	Multinational Companies	Value ($Mn)	Type
2006
	Matrix Labs	Mylan	736	Acquisition
	Dabur Pharma	Fresenius Kabi	219	Acquisition
	Ranbaxy Labs	Daiichi Sankyo	4,600	Acquisition
	Shantha Biotech	Sanofi-aventis	783	Acquisition
2009
	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	400	Business Buyout
2010
	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3,720	Business Buyout
	Paras Pharma	Reckitt Benkiser	726	Acquisition

Collaborative deals in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year	Multinational Companies	Indian Companies
2009
	GSK	Dr. Reddy’s Lab
	Pfizer	Aurobindo Pharma
2010
	AstraZeneca	Torrent
	Abbott	Cadila Healthcare
	Pfizer	Strides Arcolab
	AstraZeneca	Aurobindo Pharma
	Pfizer	Biocon
2011
	Bayer	Cadila Healthcare
	MSD	Sun Pharma

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:
Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.
If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global companies to dig their heel deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 99% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.
Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies:
To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:
• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business • Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business • Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio • Quality of the sales and marketing teams • Valuation of the business
Faster speed of consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India: Though quite unlikely, if the moderate valuation of large Indian companies starts attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the speed of evolution of the ‘local generic pharmaceutical industry’ in the country could slow down, despite entry of newer smaller players in the market.

The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market across the world.
An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:
It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, some industry insiders feel, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.
They have reportedly urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development (R&D) initiatives of the local Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. It is a fact that the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund cost-intensive R&D projects in India even after having a significant cost arbitrage.
Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?
In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space, as indicated above.
The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
It won’t be a cake walk either…not just yet:
Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) have proven it time and again, over a period of so many years.
The acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, post M&A, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just around 6.2% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, far from creating any oligopolistic pharmaceutical market in India.
Thus the pharmaceutical market in the country will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and the newer tough minded, innovative and determined local branded generic players having cost arbitrage, cerebral power and untiring spirit of competitiveness with a burning desire to win.
Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.
Conclusion:
In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the branded generics business of any Indian company. Besides the report of Burrill & Co., we also have with us examples of some of the Indian pharmaceutical acquisitions in the overseas market are not working satisfactorily as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.
Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.
Could similar situation arise in India, as well? Who knows? What happens then to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country, despite intensive lobbying efforts?

Be that as it may, in India also, a study like, ‘Burrill Report” could be quite useful to ascertain whether or not the deal making of global and local drug majors in the country over a ten year period commencing from 2006 onwards, has succeeded to create desired stakeholder value.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: global

Early Signal of Metamorphosis in the Global Pharmaceutical Product Patent Regime

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

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?