Tag Archives: incremental

Collaborative commercialization of inexpensive smaller incremental innovation in Chemistry will play an important role in bringing affordable new drugs or new drug delivery systems

Posted on by
Reply

It started in the 17th century:

Alchemy, a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, searching for a universal cure for disease and indefinitely prolonging life, not considered a science by many, gradually became the basis for the development of chemistry into the 17th century. However, perceivable impact of chemistry on humanity, through its smaller incremental innovation, started being felt only in the second half of the 19th century.

Chemistry – an interface between the physical world and humanity:

Experts in this field often opine that the current form of human civilization has been made possible, to a great extent, through significant advancement of such innovation in chemistry and its role in modern technology. Chemistry is indeed an interface between the physical world on the one hand and the humanity on the other.

Getting a perspective of resource and time requirements for such initiatives:

Is there any similarity between development of pharmaceutical chemistry and IT software?

Now a days, one finds a striking similarity between small incremental innovation in IT software and the same in pharmaceutical chemistry. Both are creative and belong to the knowledge economy. Scientists in both the communities try to generate innovative ideas, which can lead to their effective commercialization.

Resource requirements for these two are strikingly different:

However, the nature of the commercialization process of these two sciences, though seemingly similar in terms of innovativeness, is indeed quite different. In the software community, two people can implement an idea with minimal resource requirement and could end up with a profitable commercialized product, without much difficulty. In contrast, two chemists may come up with a brilliant idea, which in many cases, may require significant investment of resources much before to even think to get the initial product commercialized. Subsequent steps of scaling up will be a separate issue altogether, with more resource commitment.

The process of commercialization of smaller incremental innovation in pharmaceutical chemistry is much longer:

As we all know, the process of commercialization of incremental innovation in chemistry takes a much longer time scale, as these are not usually spare time projects, unlike computer softwares. The cost involved in testing out and implementing a new idea in chemistry is very high and may not even be possible without any robust institutional backing.

Target inexpensive smaller incremental innovation in pharmaceutical chemistry:

Some illustrative examples of such smaller incremental innovation in chemistry are as follows:

1. Development of pharmaceutical co-crystals

2. Merger of chemistry of traditional and modern medicines for synergy in both efficacy and safety

3. Chemical technology switch: taking technology of one field and transferring it to a different field to get a new drug substance

4. Application of polymorphic chemistry in drug discovery.

The process has begun:

International experience:

The chemistry department of Oxford University, U.K, which is incidentally the biggest chemistry department of the western world, has made significant advances in commercializing incremental innovation in chemistry. Among many, they created and commercialized the following three entities through such incremental innovation:

• Medisense

• Oxford Molecular

• Oxford Assymetry

The Indian experience:

Despite all challenges, in India, as well, the commercialization process of smaller incremental innovation in chemistry has already begun. The Chemistry Department of the University of Delhi has developed 11 patentable technologies for improved drug delivery system using nano-particles. One of such technologies was development of ‘smart’ hydrogel nano-particles for encapsulating water-soluble drugs. This technology was sold to Dabur Research Foundation in 1999.

Another nano-particle drug delivery technology in opthalmogy area was also commercialized by transferring it to Chandigarh based Panacea Biotech Ltd.

Conclusion:

This process is expected to gain momentum in our country too, contributing significantly to the progress of the healthcare sector of the nation. “Commercializing smaller incremental innovation in Pharmaceutical Chemistry”, I reckon, will play a key role in providing affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population, as India transforms itself into a knowledge superpower.

By Tapan Ray

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

A brief history of the Indian Patent System from Indian Pharmaceutical Industry perspective, the concerns and opportunities.

Posted on by
Reply
Although a comprehensive Act on Patents and Designs allowing product patents of drugs came into force in India in 1911, the first Patents Act of India was enacted in 1856.This Act gave a head start to the global pharmaceutical companies in this business primarily through imports into India. As a result, in no time the global pharmaceutical companies curved out a sizeable chunk of the Indian pharmaceutical market capturing over 80% of the total domestic consumption of drugs and pharmaceuticals.It has been reported that in 1959 an American Senate Committee headed by Senator Kefauver wrote in its report:

“…in drugs, generally, India ranks amongst the highest priced nations of the world”.

In 1970 the Indian Patents Act was amended abolishing the product patent system, based on ‘Ayyangar Committee report, 1959’, which examined the factors influencing the high prices of the drugs and pharmaceuticals in India and concluded:

“.. high prices resulted from the monopoly control foreign based pharmaceutical companies exercised over the production of drugs.”

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 was, once again, amended under the TRIPS agreement and the Indian Patents Act, 2005 came into force effective January 1, 2005 , re-introducing product patents for the drugs and pharmaceuticals, as a part of the globalization process of the country including the pharmaceutical industry of India.

This is perhaps the testimony of India’s realization that research and development is the bed rock for the progress of pharmaceutical industry in any country in the long run, as this industry, unlike many other industries, relies quite heavily on product patents.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry to build on its acquired strength:

Reverse engineering with high calibre skills in process chemistry emerged as one of the key strengths of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry since 1970. The industry has to build on this strength and move towards ‘incremental innovation model’ of R&D, which is less expensive and more cost effective starting with a known substance, to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The product patent regime has given a boost to pharmaceutical R&D in India:

Many medium to large Indian pharmaceutical companies, like Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy’s Lab (DRL) and Glenmark etc. have already started shifting their focus on R&D. The large number of patent applications filed by these companies to the Indian patent offices will vindicate this point. As a result of the new focus, one observes business initiatives like, spinning off the R&D units into a separate company and many R&D driven mergers and acquisitions by these domestic Indian companies.

R&D investments are also being made in traditional chemistry based screening. Moreover, companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, and Bharat Biotech etc. have engaged themselves in the space of biotechnology research.

Increasing opportunity to collaborate with the global companies:

Increasingly more and more Indian companies have started collaborating with the global companies in collaborative research and cost efficient process development to leverage their human capital and infrastructural facilities. The collaborative arrangement towards this direction between GSK and Ranbaxy provides a good example.

Contract research and manufacturing:

Some other domestic companies like Divi’s Lab, Suven Pharma, Dishman Pharma, Piramal Healthcare, Shasun Chemicals, Jubilant Organosys etc. are moving into the space of contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) establishing world class facilities and collaborating with the global players like, GSK, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis etc.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in R&D:

Initiatives by the Indian companies in collaborative research with government research institutes like CSIR and NIPER have already commenced, though much lesser in number. Some companies like, Shasun have already derived benefits in the field of biotechnology out of such collaborative research under PPP. It is expected that more such projects will see the light of the day in not too distant future.

Some concerns in the new regime:

Some serious concerns are being raised as the country is in the process of settling down in the new paradigm. The key concern is about the affordability of patented products by those who are currently having access to other modern medicines.

To address such concerns related to public health issues in general, there are already provisions in the TRIPS agreement for price control of patented products.

At the same time, one finds, the government has exempted those patented products from price control, which are domestically produced with indigenous R&D. Many feel that these differential measures will not help improving affordability and access to such patented medicines by the common man.

Keeping prices of essential medicines under the lens of price regulator is more important:

Even over last sixty years of independence, the access to modern medicines in India is meager 35 percent. 65 percent of the nation’s population does not have any access even to off patent essential drugs. In a country like India where there is no adequate social security cover towards healthcare, it will be important to keep the prices of essential medicines for treating common diseases under the close vigil of the drug price regulator.

Will the prices of medicines spiral in the product patent regime of India?

While addressing this question one will need to keep in mind that around 98 percent of drugs, which are generic or branded generic, manufactured in India and costs cheaper than their equivalents available even in our neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, will continue to remain unaffected. Hence, it is very unlikely that prices of such medicines will go up significantly because of the new product patent regime in India.

Conclusion:

The key concerns raised in the new product patent regime are that it will further deteriorate the current poor access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population.

It is undeniable that one of the key reasons for poor access to essential medicines in India is lack of buying power of a large number of both rural and urban poor. This problem gets compounded by the poor public health infrastructure, delivery system and financing system, despite sporadic initiatives taken by the government towards this direction.

To be successful in the new regime by improving access to modern medicines to those who do not have means to satisfy such basic needs, the country should take a rational and holistic approach in this matter. It is high time for all the stakeholders to ponder and flesh-out the real factors, which have been responsible for such a dismal rate of access to modern medicines to a huge 65 percent of the country’s population over decades, even when the product patent law was not in place in the country.

By Tapan Ray

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

The Government of India accepts the Mashelkar Committee Report on ‘Incremental Innovation’ – what does it really mean?

Posted on by
Reply
‘The Mashelkar Committee’ re-submitted its report in March 2009, which primarily deals with incremental innovation related to Pharmaceuticals Research.The conclusion of the report on the incremental innovation reads as follows:“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology”.

Government accepts the Mashelkar committee Report:

It has now been reported that the Government has accepted this revised report, last week. With this the questions raised in the raging debate, whether incremental innovation is TRIPS compliant or not have possibly been answered well, beyond any further doubt.

The acceptance of this report by the Government further vindicates the point that all patentable innovations are not “eureka type” or “path breaking”. Innovation is rather a continuous process and more so in pharmaceuticals. Such type of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is quite similar to what one observes in the IT industry, where incremental innovation based on existing knowledge is more a norm than an exception. With incremental innovation not just efficacy of a product, but many other important unmet needs of the patients like safety, convenience and ease of administration of the drugs can be successfully met.

Thus innovations whether “path breaking” or “incremental” in nature, need to be encouraged and will deserve patent protection, if they are novel, have followed inventive steps and are industrially applicable or useful.

R&D based Indian Pharmaceutical industry gains considerably:

Many Indian Pharmaceutical Companies have already started working on the ‘incremental innovation’ model. Appropriate amendment of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 will thus help all concerned – the patients, the industry and other stakeholders, as long as the prices of such medicines do not become unaffordable to majority of the population for various reasons. In any case, the Government has the law available within the patents Act to deal with any such situation, if arises at all.

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

Mashelkar committee categorically observes the following:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”, as stated above.

2. “Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Thus, taking these recommendations together will the DIPP now finally conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant and recommend necessary amendments, accordingly to satisfy the needs of the Research based pharmaceutical industry?

Wait a minute – wait a minute:

The report also suggests:

1. “The Technical Experts Group (TEG) was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d ) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself with these issues.”

Will this comment make the Government conclude that Section 3(d) is TRIPS compliant, which includes ‘incremental innovation’ in general, however, with the rider of ‘properties related to significant improvement in efficacy’?

2. “Every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India”.

What will these efforts mean and how will these be implemented by the Government?

3. The TEG also recommends, “every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept in the light of the foregoing discussion (paras 5.6 – 5.8 and paras 5.12 – 5.29) above of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Will the Government (mis)interpret it as a vindication of Section 3(d), which does does not mean “statutory exclusion of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability” but has just made necessary provision within this section “to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product”, as recommended by the Mashelkar Committee?

Conclusion:

In the re-submitted report of the Mashelkar committee, the TEG has made quite a few very profound comments, recommendations and suggestions, the implications of all of which are important to all the stakeholders in various different ways. Will the acceptance of this report, as a whole, by the Government and subsequent attempt by the authorities for its implementation both in the letter and spirit, will amount to “chasing a rainbow”, as it were?

Only time will us, how this “satisfy all” zig-saw-puzzle gets solved in future.

By Tapan Ray

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

Revised Mashelkar Committee Report recommends inclusion of ‘incremental innovation’ under patentability criteria.

Posted on by
Reply
In 2006, the Government of India appointed a Technical Expert Group (TEG) chaired by the eminent scientist and the then Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, with the following terms of reference:1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.The TEG submitted its report to the Government on December 29, 2006. However, due to some ‘technical inaccuracies’ Dr. Mashelkar sought the permission of the Government on February 19, 2007 “to re-examine and resubmit the report, which meets with the requirements of the highest standards’’. This request was acceded by the Government on 7th of March 2007.

Much water had flown down the bridge thereafter, which we shall not deliberate upon here. Ultimately in March 2009 the TEG submitted its revised report.

In terms of overall content, the revised report is similar to the previous one, which was withdrawn earlier.

Conclusions of the revised TEG report:

The conclusions of the report against the terms of references given to the TEG are as follows:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology’. However, every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India. Further, every effort should be made to prevent the grant of frivolous patents and ‘ever-greening’. Detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

2. “Excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of TRIPS Agreement.”

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

It is indeed interesting to note that under Para 5.11 the TEG says, “the committee was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself into these issues.”

However, in Para 5.32 the report observes the following:

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

With this observation, TEG has also clarified the scope of section 3(d), indirectly though.

The report further recommends, “detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

What next?

It will be interesting to watch what the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) does with this revised report. As we have seen that the report categorically states:

“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”

And

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Therefore, taking these two recommendations together my questions are as follows:

1. Will the DIPP conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant?

2. If so, will the DIPP recommend an amendment of this section sooner to encourage ‘incremental innovation’ within the country?

3. If not, will the DIPP clarify now the need, purpose and the importance of this report?

By Tapan Ray

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

The stormy debate on wrongful grant of pharma product patents – a countdown of the news events, for a quick perspective.

Posted on by
Reply
To give a quick perspective to this debate, I reckon, a countdown of five reported news events on the subject will be helpful. I start from February, 2009 and gradually go one year back, to February, 2008, to capture the key elements of this stormy debate. Finally, I move to ‘ground zero’ to explore the basic remedial measures to effectively address the issue.Event 5‘The Economic times’ (ET) dated February 24, 2009 reported an interesting news item titled, “Dichotomy between patent law and practice”. The timing of this article, with its various quotes, highlighting the following points, evokes interest:

1.“Indian patent authorities are virtually not following the spirit of the Sections 3(d) and 3(e)”.

2.“A large number of patents granted in India since 2005 pertain to products first patented in 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, most of which were launched in Indian markets long before 2005, the year of introduction of product patenting in the country”.

3.“The patent applicants are not making adequate disclosures, making it difficult for potential challengers to file post-grant objections which the law provides for. Since the International Non-proprietary Name (INN) is not of the drug is often not given along with the Title of the Patent, it is cumbersome for anyone to trace the patent to the original PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application and have an idea about how new it is”.

4.“Many law firms refuse to take briefs from Indian companies, because their multinational clients do not permit them to do so! The result— post-grant objection facility is not effectively used by Indian companies.”

Why are these observations interesting?

These observations are interesting because for point number 1 to 3, as stated above, following three recourses are available to all:

1. After publication of the patent applied for, in the patent journal, one can file a pre-grant opposition.

2. Assuming that someone has missed this opportunity, the provision for filing post grant opposition will still be there.

3. Assuming that both the opportunities have been missed due to some reasons and one could not understand the details of the patent applied for, during the patent granting process, the opportunity of going to a Court of law with a request to make such patents (which have violated section 3.d) invalid, will still exist.

It is indeed very difficult to understand why such measures are not being taken by the aggrieved parties, as specified in the law.

Point number four is even more difficult to understand. When lawyers are available to the domestic companies to defend alleged patent infringement, why then lawyers will not be available to them to take such objections to a court of law?

Event 4

Mint dated October 7, 2008 in its article titled; “Cozy deals and conflicting interest mark patent granting process” reported the following:

“There are even local and multinational corporates who ‘seek’ help of examiners and controllers to get their applications drafted, thereby ensuring a grant for a price”.

Event 3

‘The Economic Times’ dated July 1, 2008 reported in its article titled, “Cipla gets patent for Nexium, Fosamax modified versions” that Mumbai Patent office granted these two patents to Cipla in April, 2008 for new forms of two well known blockbuster drugs, Esomeprazole (Nexium of Astra Zeneca) and Alendronate (Fosamax of Merck). This news came as a big surprise because Cipla is well known for its continuous accusation to innovator companies for trying to extend ‘monopoly’ period by ever-greening patent through similar means. The report, therefore, raised a very valid question, whether Cipla has ‘walked the talk’ in India? It will be interesting to know on what basis Cipla managed to overcome the ‘efficacy’ barriers under section 3(d).

On this ET report, well known IPR expert Shamnad Basheer wrote the following in his blog dated July 6, 2008:

“Reading the ET piece, Nathan Evans of Finnegan Henderson, who’s a very astute commentator on the Indian patent scene and has written a couple of articles in this regard posed this question to me:

“This makes me wonder if the patent office in India will apply the laws less strictly to Indian pharmas than MNCs (kind of like they apply the patent laws more strictly for essential medicines)”

Shamnad Basheer concluded his comment on this subject with the following observations:

“How ought section 3(d) to be interpreted when our very own generic manufacturers are applying for supposedly “incremental” inventions?”

Event 2

According to Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI) report dated March 7, 2008, FICCI and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and Industry have joined hands to set up a working group to improve Intellectual Property regime in India.
It will be interesting to know the view of this joint working group between the Government and the Industries, in this matter. I have not read anywhere any comments of this important working group on such matter, so far.

Event 1

‘Thomson and Reuters patent focus report’ dated February, 2009 observed absence of clear guidelines (Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure) about some of the complex provisions of patent law, particularly section 3(d). The report indicated that there should be clarity on what would qualify as “enhanced efficacy” under section 3(d) so that it can help the patent examiners to clearly make out which patent applications would fall under section 3(d).

Ground Zero:

Let us now try to ponder, realize and fathom the core issue of this problem, which lies at the ‘Ground Zero’. Thus far we have been reading constant allegations about the functioning of Indian Patent Offices and even on their integrity and honesty.

In absence of a well drafted, long overdue, Patent Manual, all concerned, including patent examiners will have their own ways of looking into “enhanced efficacy”. In such a situation, I shall not be surprised if the Patent Examiners suffer from the dilemma as to what exactly will constitute “enhanced efficacy”.

Protracted debate with the stakeholders on the ‘draft patent manual’ appears to be over now. The last stakeholders’ meeting on this subject was concluded in Kolkata following Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, several months ago. However, the final Patent Manual is still not in place, which has been kept for public inspection since 2005.

To address this stormy debate, in my view, we need to:

1. Push for expeditious release and implementation of the Patent Manual (Manual of Patent Practice
and Procedure).

2. Let FICCI – DIPP working group work more effectively and cohesively for better functioning of the
new IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) regime.

3. Let ‘capacity building’ exercise at the Indian Patent office (IPO) continue with greater speed.

Mere accusation and constant bashing of the IPOs, as we now see around, may not yield much result. After having taken the above measures, if similar dissatisfaction in any quarter still remains, let law take its own course. Despite great apprehensions by some, as quoted above under point 1, never mind, enough lawyers will be available to fight such cases.

By Tapan Ray

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