The Power Of Color And Design In Pharma Branding

Posted on November 16, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On November 06, 2015, the District Court of Delaware of the United States (US) passed a temporary restraining order barring Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) from selling in the US its generic version of AstraZeneca’s blockbuster anti-ulcerant drug Nexium, with immediate effect.

This temporary order came in response to the petition moved by the drug innovator – AstraZeneca, objecting to the use of purple color in DRL’s generic equivalent of Nexium, launched in September 2015.

According to an estimate, this generic formulation could fetch a post tax profit of around US$25 to US$35 million to DRL in 2016. Nevertheless, the Delaware court order is pending a further hearing. The court has also asked both the companies to suggest the next course of action.

When color becomes an integral part of brand value creation:

AstraZeneca’s effective branding of ‘purple color pills’ Nexium and Prilosec has helped the company to obtain this temporary restraining court order, which states:

“As a result of such promotional efforts, there is undisputed evidence that the media and the public associate the color purple with AstraZeneca and its Prilosec and Nexium products.”

The Court observed, though DRL product is not identical to AstraZeneca’s Nexium, still could confuse patients due to its association with the purple color.

In this context, it is worth noting, though a couple of other generic Nexium capsules are available in the US, none is purple in color. Teva’s capsules are green and blue and Mylan’s are white in color.

Can a right be established on branding ‘color’?

It appears so. In its Complaint to the Court against DRL, AstraZeneca (AZ) argued in favor of its successful branding of Nexium with ‘Purple Color, as follows:

AZ brand has offered relief to sufferers of severe heartburn and other disorders caused by stomach acid reflux through its “Purple Pills” Prilosec® and Nexium®, known as “The Purple Pill®.”

AZ has devoted significant resources over the years to advertise and promote its Prilosec® and Nexium® purple pills using the ‘look for’ purple advertising.
The preference for purple was purely for branding purposes—purple contributes nothing to the safety or efficacy of AZ’s products.

AZ has continuously sold Nexium® from 2001 to present in purple colored capsules with either two or three gold-colored bands displayed on the purple capsules.

Thus, AZ’s Purple Pills have been famous for many years through extensive advertising both to doctors and patients and extensive publicity, among other reasons.

If DRL is not enjoined from using the color purple, DRL’s purple generic pills are likely to cause confusion among consumers and others and are likely to dilute the distinctiveness of AZ’s federally registered purple color trademarks.

DRL’s attempt to free-ride off the fame of AZ’s famous Purple Pills poses imminent irreparable harm to both AZ and the public if not enjoined.

I would like to remind the readers at this point that Pfizer also did branding of Viagra keeping the color of the pill as one of the key ingredients, as it is also well-known as the ‘Blue Pill’, across the world.

Does color of the pill matter to patients?

In this regard, on July 15, 2014, an interesting study titled, “Burden of Changes in Pill Appearance for Patients Receiving Generic Cardiovascular Medications After Myocardial Infarction”, published in the journal of ‘Annals of Internal Medicine’, wanted to find out whether non persistent use of generic drugs among patients with cardiovascular disease after Myocardial Infarction (MI) is associated with the inconsistent appearance of their medications.

The study concluded, “Variation in the appearance of generic pills is associated with the nonpersistent use of these essential drugs after MI among patients with cardiovascular disease.”

Or in other words, the researchers found, 30 percent or more patients are likely to stop taking their medication because the unexpected change, can be confusing.

Impact of a branding strategy with color and design as integral parts:

Even after a product goes off-patent, ‘Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)’ could still protect aspects of a pill design, which are not associated with product functioning.

The above study finds that in true sense, the shape and color of the tablets or capsules are very much intimately associated with the functional aspect of the product, as these characteristics established through effective branding exercise of the original product, help promoting patient compliance to various drugs, which is so important in combating serious ailments.

Effective branding with extrinsic factors:

The above important research finding clearly establishes that even the extrinsic product features like, color and design, when used in an effective branding strategy, could have critical medical relevance for the patients.

Such clever pharma branding strategies are not just restricted to:

AstraZeneca’s “little purple pill” – Nexium
Or Pfizer’s “blue-diamond-shaped tablet” – Viagra.

There are many other examples of making extrinsic product features as effective branding tools. A few of these are as follows:

GlaxoSmithKline’s craftily designed a “tilt-tab” for its Parkinson’s disease brand Requip. This design makes it easier for the patients to pick up the tablets. Requip “tilt-tab” has been modeled with unconventional 5 sides and a pointed fulcrum that prevents it from lying flat.

Diovan blister packs of Novartis with calendar markings for pills, improved patient compliance significantly, as a research study established.

Special caps are now reportedly available that fit on most prescription drug bottles, containing a wireless chip that communicates with a light plug. The cap pulses orange light, when the patient forgets to take a pill.

An article published in the ‘Outsourcing-Pharma.com’ on March 11, 2014 states, Philadelphia based Colorcon, that works with many pharma manufacturers, both innovator and generic players, to shape and coat their tablets, has a library of 40,000 different colors and shapes of samples to choose from.

The color and design war in pharma branding has just begun:

The importance of color and design as a pharma brand identity has started being realized today. The latest DRL case involving the color of AstraZeneca’s Nexium, close on the heels of similar other cases related to the blue color of Pfizer’s Viagra, has thrown open a critical question.

This query wants a specific answer, whether IP protection on Trademark would get extended to distinctive colors, which through branding initiatives have become strongly associated with a specific brand. Possibly the unprecedented lawsuit on the subject by AstraZeneca against DRL would ultimately settle the legal aspect of the issue, decisively.

Nevertheless, the importance of color and design as two key ingredients of successful pharma branding would remain unchallenged from ‘creative marketing’ stand point.

Conclusion:

There are market research studies that suggest that around 80 percent of visual information for any brand is related to color and design. Pharmaceuticals are no exceptions. Thus, these important extrinsic product features can be strategically leveraged with the intrinsic product benefits in a branding exercise, to create a cutting edge value synergy.

In today’s environment of innovative branding strategy, the state of art tablet color and design technologies may be appropriately utilized by the pharma players to successfully build and also to get limited brand protection, as happened in the case of Nexium of AstraZeneca.

The research findings, as mentioned above, that such type of branding has important medical relevance too, may be construed as an additional silver lining to this exciting process.

In my view, the aforesaid strategy would make enormous sense for branded generic drugs too, though with tailor-made approaches, which could well be a different discussion altogether.

Keeping all this in perspective, I reckon, innovative use of the power of color and design in pharma ‘branding’ exercise, including a comprehensive communication strategy with appropriate platforms, could provide an important leading edge for significant commercial success of a brand.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

TPP: Discord Within A Strange Mélange And Impact On Access To Medicines

Posted on May 25, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On May 19, 2015, Bloomberg reported that a sizable number of President Barack Obama’s own party colleagues, besides teachers, seniors, Internet freedom groups and nuns, have joined the push to defeat the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

Before I delve into the TPP, solely from the Indian pharmaceutical industry perspective, it is worth acknowledging upfront India’s firm assertion, repeatedly, to continue with its well-thought out and robust Patents Act 2005.

Even the final draft of the National IPR policy, which is now being circulated for inter-ministerial consultations and will soon be taken up by the Cabinet, reasserted that the country’s IPR policy is fully compliant with the Trade Related aspects of IPR (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In this process, global demonstration of India’s firm resolve against dilution of the country’s Intellectual Property (IP) regime, coming under any form of intense external pressure, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general.

This trend now gets reflected from some constituents even within the United States, besides several members of the 12-nation TPP, which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty, aimed at strengthening relationship on economic policies and regulatory issues between the member nations.

Publicly articulated key objectives of the pact are to significantly reduce tariffs between the member nations and open up trade, boosting investment flows between its signatories, to accelerate economic growth.

The member countries of TPP have also agreed to work together on issues such as customs procedures, labor practices, intellectual property and competition policies.

Through its comprehensive coverage of issues and binding regulations, TPP is expected to set new benchmark for international trade. It is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Uneasy secrecy:

However, the uneasy secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the agreement makes its critics seriously apprehensive about its impact on the developing nations of the world. This is because; the concerned delegates of the negotiating team always remain tight lipped about the progress made in coming to an agreement on the scope of the pact. This information is critical for assessment of direct and indirect global impact of TPP on the trade, economy and society, in general.

According to reports, TPP members, such as, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Besides the above countries, other members of TPP are United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

Large Asian economies are not a part:

Interestingly, large Asian economies, especially, four important members of the G20, namely, China, India, South Korea and Indonesia, are not a part of the TPP, just yet.

It is worth noting, TPP is being led by the world’s largest economy and the biggest trading nation – the United States, the country that sees Asia-Pacific as key to its future growth.

Noting all these, many experts in this field, across the world, have already raised a flag saying that the US may be trying to use TPP as a means to undermine China’s growing economic might in the region.

Many gaps still to bridge:

The real negotiations for this treaty started only in 2010 and are still continuing. However, the details of negotiations is so much shrouded under water tight secrecy, even to the lawmakers of the United States, it is indeed challenging for anyone to predict the timeframe of its coming to fruition.

Reuters reported on May 21, 2015, “Chief negotiators from the 12 TPP countries are trying to bridge gaps for a deal at a meeting in Guam that will run through to May 28, 2015. But ministers would need to meet to clinch an accord,”

In this article, I shall only focus on the possible impact of this pact on the access to medicines, especially in the developing world.

Leaked drafts of TPP negotiations:

As the progress of negotiations of this pact continue to remain under uneasy secrecy, on November 13, 2013, WikiLeaks released the secretly negotiated draft text for the entire IPR Chapter of the TPP.

30,000-word IP chapter of the leaked documents, besides others, reportedly contains proposals to increase the term of drug patents beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

TPP and patents:

When it comes to the issue of access to affordable medicines for a vast majority of the global population, the overall patent ecosystem of a nation and how evergreening of patents with monopolistic high pricing are addressed, automatically enter into the broader framework of intense public and stakeholders’ discourse.

Article 8.1 of the draft agreement sets-forth the availability of patents, and provides that “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product; and these may satisfy the criteria for patentability, even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the product.”

Interestingly, TRIPS agreement, on the other hand, specifies that patents are available “provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.”

In that sense, the above provision in the Article. 8.1 is quite inconsistent with the patent laws of many TPP member countries, and especially India.

Consequently, experts have raised serious concerns about the impact of TPP on the IP laws of a country, in general, as it may extend the scope of drug patents, preventing free distribution of cheaper generic drugs to the needy patients.

Impact on access to medicines:

As stated earlier, there have been serious apprehensions that TPP would adversely impact the access to medicines.

According to widely reported leaked drafts of TPP negotiations, the US is demanding aggressive IP provisions in the agreement. It is believed, if accepted, these would directly undermine public health safeguards available in international law, making it harder for TPP member countries to gain access to cheaper generic drugs.

Many experts in this field reportedly construe, these stringent IP provisions that the US is demanding may be categorized as ‘TRIPS-plus’ and have the following serious impact adversely impacting access to medicines :

Make it impossible to challenge the validity of a patent before it is granted

Lower the requirements for patentability, so that minor alterations of existing medicines can be  given additional protected monopoly status, even if the alteration offers no therapeutic benefit

Require the patenting of diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods

Lengthen patent monopolies for pharmaceutical firms so that they keep generics out and inflate drug prices for longer periods of time

Make it harder for generic manufacturers to obtain regulatory approval for their drugs

Create additional monopolies based on clinical data

Impose new forms of IP enforcement that give customs officials excessive powers to impound legitimate generic medicines

Impose higher prices on national pharmaceutical reimbursement programs

Allow pharmaceutical companies to sue governments and limit governments’ abilities to effectively set prices for medicines and legislate in the interest of public health.

Discord within key TPP member countries:

Though Australia is one of the key signatories of TPP, in February 2015, the Medical Journal of Australia also commented that the leaked draft of the agreement includes patenting standards that would delay cheaper drugs.

Quoting the Medical Journal of Australia, ‘The Guardian’ too reiterated: “The most recently leaked draft of the international trade deal includes provisions proposed by the US that would further protect the monopoly pharmaceutical companies hold over drugs, and delay cheaper versions from entering the market. The draft agreement sets in stone low patenting standards, which allow drug companies to practice ‘evergreening’ – when a pharmaceutical company tries to maintain its market monopoly on a drug for longer by applying for extra patents. This prevents other companies entering the market with cheaper versions of the same medicine and imposes large and unnecessary costs on the health system and consumers.”

Similarly, across Canada, people are speaking out about the TPP. They are rallying against the secrecy of the 12-country negotiations and the corporate agenda behind the deal.

On February 12, 2015 legislators in seven of the 12 TPP countries issued the following joint statement about the negotiations:

“We, the undersigned legislators from countries involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, call on the Parties to the negotiation to publish the draft text of the Agreement before any final agreement is signed with sufficient time to enable effective legislative scrutiny and public debate.”

In Canada, the federal NDP and the Green Party of Canada endorsed the above statement. It is the simplest of demands for democracy on a “trade” deal that threatens to undermine the very notion of the public good, by giving corporations more power to undermine public policy.

As stated above, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are also negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Though not in the areas of access to medicines, Japan too expressed its concerns on TPP impacting its agriculture sector. Protests are forthcoming in the copyrights area, as well.

Apprehensions catching-up in the US too:

May 19, 2015 Bloomberg report also indicates, specifically from the pharmaceutical industry perspective, some key stakeholders are worried about the effects of more open markets on drug pricing that could increase their costs and “Foreign corporations or subsidiaries will be able to challenge a number of public health programs.”

In a letter of May 12, 2015 to the House and Senate, the Alliance for Retired Americans has reportedly underscored the possibility of this grave danger to them, if TPP comes into effect.

On May 21, 2015, Reuters reported, just 13 out of 44 Democrats (of President Obama’s own Party) backed the legislation in the Senate’s second procedural vote on last Thursday.

Earlier, a group of over 30 legal academics reportedly sent a letter to the US Trade Representative, expressing “profound concern and disappointment at the lack of public participation, transparency and open government processes in the negotiation of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP”.

Other important areas of criticism:

Other key areas of criticism of TPP are as follows:

Excessive emphasis on trade issues that have remained unresolved or unaddressed at the WTO due to differences between developed and emerging markets.

Adopting a negotiating style reflecting the US regulatory approach to international trade

Allowing companies to sue foreign governments, which would allow them to dodge health and environmental standards.

Giving shape to a geo-political road map of the US that supports its strategic rebalancing towards Asia.

A strange mélange:

An article published in the April 9, 2015 edition of Forbes, titled “TPP Is A Mistake”, very appropriately describes TPP as a strange mélange of 12 members countries that includes five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand.

In terms of populations, the total American contingent which stands at 535 million, more than half the total population of the Americas (947 million), is significantly larger than the Asian population figures which amount to no more than 256.6 million (285 if one adds Australia and New Zealand), compared to Asia’s total population of 4.3 billion: almost half of the Asian contingent is accounted for by one member – Japan, the articles states.

In this article, former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the architect of Malaysia’s impressive economic growth and development during his tenure from 1981 to 2003, was quoted saying:

“The strongest campaigner of TPP is America … which seeks … to contain China and to safeguard its own economic interests by exploiting all resources from small but growing independent nations such as Malaysia”.

He further adds, “TPP is not a fair or free trade partnership, but an agreement to tie down nations with rules and regulations that would only benefit American conglomerates”.

Is TPP more than just a trade agreement?

Many experts feel, that TPP is basically a geopolitical tool to contain China with ‘trade’ as its façade.

The votaries of TPP argue that it aims to achieve a very high standard trade agreement and thus the reason of keeping China out of it is not geopolitical. Other Asian nations, including China, can apply and qualify for membership once they commit to meeting these high standards, they reiterate.

The above argument does not seem to be a robust one, as that would mean, a sizable proportion of its smaller current members, such as, Vietnam, already conform to so called ‘high standards’, as required for the TPP agreement.

Besides geopolitical issue, many are also questioning whether TPP is what the developing countries need, especially, at this stage of their development.

Conclusion:

One may quite pertinently ask, in what way TPP is relevant to India?

TPP is relevant to India in the sense that it is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Be that as it may, if I restrict myself only to the drug patent related area of the proposed pact, it appears, unless the damaging provisions in the concerned chapters are removed through negotiations before the agreement is finalized, the TPP would possibly turn out to be the most harmful trade pact ever, especially from the perspective of access to medicines in the developing countries of the worlds.

May 2015 issue of ‘amfAR’ – The Foundation for AIDS Research based in Washington DC of the United States captured the essence of possible healthcare related issues with TPP – the pact of a strange mélange of 12 member countries, with the following words:

“By providing avenues for pharmaceutical companies to extend IP protection beyond what is required by current international standards, the TPP could greatly delay the entrance of generic competition for much-needed medicines and keep prices high. Doing so would continue an unacceptable and dangerous trend of irrevocable expansion of IP protections at the expense of access to medicines and would serve as a justification for even more aggressive measures in future FTAs.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on March 2, 2015 by Tapan Ray

The terminologies ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Data Protection’ are quite often used interchangeably by many, creating a great deal of confusion on the subject. However, in a true sense these are quite different issues having critical impact on public health interest of a nation.

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

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

A brief overview:

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

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

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

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

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

In an article published in ipHandbook, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift with a great deal of experience in the U.K. Department of International Development (DFID) and a former Secretary, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health Organization; differentiated these two terminologies as follows:

Data Protection (DP): Protection of commercially valuable data held by the drug regulator against disclosure and unfair commercial use.

Data Exclusivity (DE): A time bound form of Intellectual Property (IP) protection that seeks to allow companies recouping the cost of investment in producing data required by the regulatory authority.

Arguments in favor of ‘Data Exclusivity’:

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments suspecting the intent of ‘Data Exclusivity’:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRIPS Agreement talks about DP, but not DE:

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

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

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

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

According to Charles Clift, Article 39.3 only articulates widely accepted trade secret and unfair competition law, and is not an invitation to create new IP rights per se for test data. Nor does it prevent outside parties from relying on the test data submitted by an originator, except in case of unfair commercial practices.

Some developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union have argued that Article 39.3 of TRIPS requires countries to create a regime of DE, which is a new form of time-limited IP protection. However, it is worth noting that in both these countries DE regime was adopted prior to TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS Plus’.

What is ‘TRIPS Plus’?

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

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

Some common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions:

Common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could include:

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

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

- Delaying the entry of generics

Is ‘Data Protection’ an IPR issue?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Tapan Ray

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

The above sharp, piercing and precise comment did not come from any health activist from India or elsewhere. It came from a team of highly credible academic experts working in the United States.

On February 10, 2015, Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also University Professor at Columbia University, former Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank, made this comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’.

The article is co-authored by Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC and Arjun Jayadev, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The authors arrived at the above conclusion based on some sound arguments. I am highlighting below some of those important ones (may not be in the same order):

A patent that raises the price of a drug a hundred-fold has the same effect on the market as a 10,000 percent tariff.

India’s Patents and Act and policies allow drugs to be sold at a small fraction of the monopoly prices commanded by patent holders. For example, the Hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is sold for US$84,000 per treatment in the US; Indian manufacturers are able to sell the generic version profitably for less than US$1,000 per treatment.

The threat of competition from Indian generics is partly responsible for major pharmaceutical companies’ decision to make some of their drugs available to the world’s poor at low prices. If the US compels India to tighten its patent rules substantially, so that they resemble US rules more closely, this outcome could be jeopardized.

Multilateral approach, using the World Trade Organization (WTO), has proved less effective than the major multinational pharmaceutical companies hoped, so now they are attempting to achieve this goal through bilateral and regional agreements.

In the view of America’s pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS did not go far enough. The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.

In September 2014, during his visit to the US, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to establish a working group to reevaluate the country’s patent policy. The US participants in that group will be led by the Office of the US Trade Representative, which serves the pharmaceutical companies’ interests, rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health.

Any comparable voice in favor of changes in Indian Patents Act?

I don’t seem to have heard or read as strong arguments from as credible sources as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev – the authors of the above article, in favor of the changes that American pharma companies want in the Indian Patents Act.

India at the center stage in IPR debate:

In the IPR debate, India is continuously being seen at the center stage for various reasons. The key one being the size, scale and economic efficiency that the home grown Indian pharma players have attained to cater to the needs of a large number of global population, including those residing in the United States and Europe, with a wide range of high quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Fast evolving scenario:

It is now absolutely clear that being rattled by several refusals of India’s granting product patent to very similar molecules with minor tweaking under section (3d) of the country’s Patents Act, together with the nation’s uprightness in issuing Compulsory License (CL) for an enormously expensive cancer drug reducing its price by over 95 percent, United States now intends to directly intervene into India’s IPR policy environment.

As Nobel Laureate Stiglitz wrote, keen desire of the new dispensation of the Indian government to enhance its trade relations with the US has provided a golden opportunity to American pharma companies and their paid lobbyists to jump into the fray. They have started exerting enormous pressure on their own Government to compel India, at bilateral discussions, dilute its well-balanced Patents Act, ignoring India’s sovereign right to play by the flexibilities as provided by the WTO to protect public health interest in the country.

Both the domestic and international civil society organizations, including public health activists have expressed their serious concerns on this aggressive intent of US and India’s seemingly vulnerable position in this regard.

“The US is pushing India to play by its rules on Intellectual Property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people,” commented the Executive Director of MSF’s Access Campaign, according to media reports.

Non-pharma American Organizations reacted differently:

14 American organizations in a letter to their President Barack Obama dated January 20, 2015, just prior to his visit to India, asked him “to support India’s central role in providing high-quality, low-cost generic medicines -which are essential for health care around the world. Recent U.S. policy stances have sought to topple parts of India’s intellectual property regime that protect public health in order to advance the interests of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in longer, stronger, and broader exclusive patent and related monopoly rights. India’s laws fully comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Millions around the world depend on affordable generic medicines that would disappear if India acceded to these proposals, including many beneficiaries of US-funded programs. Instead of using your trip to promote the narrow interests of one segment of the pharmaceutical industry, we ask you to support the interests of people who need affordable medicines, whether they live in the U.S., in India, in Africa or elsewhere. Our world is safer and healthier because of India’s pro-health stance and we ask you to say so publicly while you are there.”

The letter re-emphasized at the end:

“From Detroit to New Delhi, health is increasingly interconnected. Our world is safer when it is healthier, and it is healthier because India’s laws appropriately balance health and IP.”

An interesting development:

It is interesting to note that after Winter Session of the Indian Parliament, the Modi Government announced a number of important policy changes at the end of December 2014.

Interestingly, one more critical policy – National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy has been left open for public comments and the final IPR Policy is yet to be announced despite enormous American pressure on India in this regard.

Without any specifics, the first draft of the National IPR policy just states that India will “review and update IP laws, where necessary, and remove anomalies and inconsistencies, if any.” It does emphasize though, the need of “more innovation” in the country, unequivocally and quite justifiably.

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

Conclusion:

It is generally believed that the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy is undoubtedly a positive step to clarify the Government’s stand in maintaining a balanced IP regime in the country that would encourage innovation to add speed to the progress of the nation.

In just 10 years Indian IPR regime has, by and large, attracted enormous global attention mostly for balancing IP and public health interest, admirably. Experts like Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz sincerely hope that India will not change this course under pressure of any kind or form.

Be that as it may, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In my subsequent articles in this blog, I shall deliberate on these two contentious issues, keeping the evolving scenario in perspective.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on February 2, 2015 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

Additional US interest in Indian IP regime from TPP perspective:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion in the summit meeting:

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

Reaffirmed the importance of providing transparent and predictable policy environments for fostering innovation. Both countries reiterated their interest in sharing information and best practices on IPR issues, and reaffirmed their commitment to stakeholders’ consultations on policy matters concerning intellectual property protection.

Reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and announced specific actions at home and abroad to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including a CDC-Ministry of Health Ebola and GHSA preparedness training, expansion of the India Epidemic Intelligence Service, and development of a roadmap to achieve the objectives of the GHSA within three years.

Committed to multi-sectoral actions countering the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and cooperation in training of health workers in preparedness for infectious disease threats. The Leaders agreed to focus science and technology partnerships on countering antibiotic resistant bacteria and promoting the availability, efficacy and quality of therapeutics.

Welcomed further progress in promoting bilateral cooperation on cancer research, prevention, control, and management and agreed to continue to strengthen the engagement between the CDC and India’s National Centre for Disease Control.

Welcomed the upcoming completion of an Environmental Health, Occupational Health and Injury Prevention and Control MoU between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Indian Council for Medical Research to further collaborative efforts to improve the health and welfare of both countries’ citizens.

Agreed to expand the India-U.S. Health Initiative into a Healthcare Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to further strengthen bilateral collaboration in health sectors including through capacity building initiatives and by exploring new areas, including affordable healthcare, cost saving mechanisms, distribution barriers, patent quality, health services information technology, and complementary and traditional medicine.

Pledged to encourage dialogue between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Indian counterparts on traditional medicine.

Pledged to strengthen collaboration, dialogue, and cooperation between the regulatory authorities of the two countries to ensure safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceuticals, including generic medicines.

Agreed to accelerate joint leadership of the global Call to Action to end preventable deaths among mothers and children through a third meeting of the 24 participating countries in India in June 2015. As host, India will showcase the power of new partnerships, innovations and systems to more effectively deliver life-saving interventions.

Also lauded the highly successful collaboration on a locally produced vaccine against rotavirus, which will save the lives of an estimated 80,000 children each year in India alone, and pledged to strengthen the cooperation in health research and capacity building through a new phase of the India-U.S. Vaccine Action Program.

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

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

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

US pressure on IP to continue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on January 19, 2015 by Tapan Ray

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

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

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here below are examples of some of those events:

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

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

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

On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.

It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.

“India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

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

- Non-availability of regulatory data protection

- Non-availability of patent term restoration

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

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

In the midst of all these, international media reported:

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

Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.

In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.

Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Outlook 2015: A Glimpse Of Some Drivers and Barriers

Posted on January 5, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Looking ahead, the brand new year 2015 appears quite interesting to me both from the global and also from the local pharmaceutical industry perspective. In this article I shall try to give a glimpse of some of the important drivers and barriers for success of the industry as the year unfolds, based on recent and ongoing developments.

Let me start with the global outlook of 2015, where in the midst of all gloom and doom of the past years, I notice formation of a distinct and new silver lining, mainly due to the following two reasons:

1. Record number of new drugs approval in 2014 spanning across10 therapy areas:

As indicated in its website, USFDA has approved 41 novel medicines in 2014, which is 14 more than the previous year and is the second highest after 1996 that witnessed 53 approvals. Many of these new drugs are with blockbuster potential.

According to another report, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also recommended 82 new medicines in 2014, which though includes generic drugs in its list. However, this number too shows an increase from 79 in 2013 and 57 in 2012.

According to January 02, 2014 report from Forbes, very interestingly, infectious diseases dominated with 12 approvals (27 percent), cancer with 8 approvals (18 percent), followed by rare diseases with 5 (11 percent). Just two of these new approvals are for Hepatitis treatment and the rest are for bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic infections.

AstraZeneca received the highest number of 4 approvals followed by Eli Lilly with 3.

2. Patent expired blockbuster drugs in 2015 would have low generic impact:

Though drugs worth sales turnover of US$ 44 billion would go off patent in 2015, patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses. Following are the top 10 drugs among those:

No.	Brand	Company	Disease	Sales2013 (US$ Bn)	Patent Expiry
1.	Lantus	Sanofi	Diabetes	7.9	Feb 2015
2.	Abilify	Otsuka/Bristol-Myers Squibb	Schizophrenia/ Other neurological conditions	7.8	April 2015
3.	Copaxone	Teva	Multiple sclerosis	4.33	Sept 2015
4.	Neulasta	Amgen	Infection reduction in cancer patients on chemotherapy	4.4	Oct 2015
5.	Tracleer	Actelion	Pulmonary arterial hypertension	1.57	Nov 2015
6.	Namenda	Actavis	Alzheimer’s disease	1.5	April 2015
7.	Avodart/Jalyn	GSK	Benign prostatic hypertrophy	1.34	Nov 2015
8.	Zyvox	Pfizer	Gram-positive bacterial infections	1.35	May 2015
9.	AndroGel	Abbvie	Low testosterone	1.03	Early 2015
10.	Synagis	AstraZeneca	Monoclonal antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants	1.1	Oct 2015

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

As a significant number of these drugs are biologics, such as Lantus, Abilify, Neulasta and Synagis, the generic impact on those large brands, post patent expiry, would be minimal, at least, for several more years.

However, Lantus sales could soon be impacted, as its biosimilar versions from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly have already received approval in Europe, and may be launched in the United States, as well.

Biosimilar versions of other drugs that will go off patent in 2015, do not seem to be anywhere near launch soon to make immediate dent in the sales of the original biologics. I had deliberated on various possible reasons for delay in biosimilar entry, especially in the US, in my earlier blog post of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

Taking all these into consideration, EvaluatePharma has estimated that out of patent expiry related sales turnover of US$44 billion, just around US $16 billion would get impacted in 2015 by their generic equivalents.

Global market outlook 2015:

According to IMS Health, spending on medicines will reach nearly $1,100 billion in 2015 with a growth rate of 3-6 percent over the last five-year period.

According to EvaluatePharma, the overall outlook of the global pharma industry in 2015 and beyond is expected to be as follows:

A dozen products launched in 2015 are forecast to achieve blockbuster sales by 2020

Drugs treating high cholesterol and heart failure will dominate the field with a combined 2020 sales forecast of US$8 billion

Sovaldi and its combination product Harvoni will take the number one worldwide seller spot with forecasted sales of $15.3 billion in 2015

Patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses

Financing climate appears friendly and deals will continue at a steady pace but M&A activity unlikely to match the frenzy of 2014

Moreover, Oncology therapy area brings a huge promise with novel immuno-oncology drugs. As Reuters have reported, Merck & Co’s Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo, which work by blocking a protein called Programmed Death receptor (PD-1), are the first in a coming wave of immuno-therapies that analysts believe could generate annual sales of more than US$30 billion a year.

Indian pharma industry outlook 2015:

Indian pharmaceutical industry, dominated by branded generic drugs, is estimated to register a turnover of around US$ 33.8 billion with an average growth of 10.3 percent in 2014 – 2018 period, according to Deloitte. Increasing number of diagnosis and treatment of chronic ailments, fuelled by ascending trend in the per capita income, would be the key factors to drive this double-digit growth rate.

In 2013-14, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent, which is the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition. India still stands exposed in this area, unless meaningful corrective measures are taken forthwith. It is worth noting, although India exports drugs to over 200 countries in the world, the United States (US) alone accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Exports Front’:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India and account for around 10 per cent of finished dosages in the US.

Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs, which are mainly produced in around 200 USFDA approved drug-manufacturing facilities located in India. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this space is indeed mind-boggling.

Indian drug exports were taking place satisfactorily without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, creating an uncertainty on drug exports in those countries.

To overcome this critical issue and keep marching ahead with distinction in the drug exports front, Indian pharma would require to successfully dealing with the following two areas:

A. Data integrity:

Since quite a while, USFDA has been raising serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ in their previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players. The details of each of these concerns are available in the USFDA website.

This worrying development is now posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports, as in this area the Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons. However, the good news is, considering the criticality of the situation, the Indian government is now working with the USFDA to resolve this problem.

I discussed a part of this area in my Blog Post of September 29, 2014 titled “Make in India…Sell Any Where in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

B. Credibility of Clinical Trial Data from India:

Credibility of ‘Clinical Trial Data’ generated by the domestic players in India, has also become a cause of great concern, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Domestic Front’:

Though 2015 would also witness the following important issues and challenges, meeting with this challenge of change should not be difficult with a proper mindset and right strategies:

A. The Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013):

Change in the mechanism of drug price control from earlier ‘cost based’ to newer ‘market based’ one and the specified provisions to neutralize inflationary impact of the input costs on the bottom line, based on the WPI, have already been considered as welcoming changes for the industry. As a result, despite implementation of the DPCO 2013, the pharma shares continued to do well in 2014 despite doomsayers’ predicaments, not just in the past, but even today.

I believe, the DPCO 2013 would not cause any significant negative impact further in 2015 on the performance of pharma companies, as the price controlled drugs would in all probability continue to be around 20 percent of the total pharma market. Moreover, now annual price increases are linked to the WPI for the controlled products and the companies can increase prices of remaining 80 percent of decontrolled products, upto 10 percent every year, irrespective of inflationary trend.

That said, due to huge inter-brand price differences, in July 2014 the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had brought under price control 50 more cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs in addition to 348 drugs that featured under price control in the DPCO 2013.

If the pharma players do not take note of such abnormal inter-brand price variation of the same drugs without meaningful reasons, there could possibly be further move by the NPPA in this direction.

Additionally, any mechanism for patented products’ pricing, if announced in 2015, would have far-reaching impact, especially on the MNCs marketing such drugs.

B. Unethical practices in Clinical trial:

In the Clinical Trial arena of India, responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee had indicted the drug regulator and charted out some action areas. The Parliamentary Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

Driven by the directives of the Apex Court of the country, the union ministry of health of the government of India has already strengthened some areas of past laxity in drug regulatory control, such as mandatory registration of clinical trials, constitution of committees to oversee the trial approval, its execution and above all ethical treatment of patients, including compensation.

Although, these are all requisite measures to create an appropriate longer-term eco-system for clinical trials in India, it has reportedly ruffled many feathers, such as CROs in the country who work mainly for pharma MNCs and some global pharma players too. This is mainly because of inordinate delays in drug approvals during the regulatory rectification process, besides cost of clinical trials going up. An orderly drug regulatory environment must prevail, instead of allegedly ‘free for all’ clinical trial environment in the country, costing many innocent lives and livelihoods. Responding to this changing clinical trial environment, some MNCs have already articulated that they are reconsidering their drug trial strategy in India and some Indian players, possibly with vested interests and echoing similar sentiments, are also saying that they would shift their clinical trial projects out of India, which would adversely impact the country’s clinical trial industry.

Be that as it may, it appears now that under the directive of the Supreme Court of the country, the decisions taken by the government in clinical trial area are irreversible, for the long-term interest of the country.

C. Intellectual Property (IP) issues:

Reacting to some well-justified measures taken by India in the IP area to make healthcare affordable to all, the US and its some key allies, continuously pressured by their powerful pharma lobby groups, continue to push India hard to broaden the IP protections. ‘Big Pharma’ lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel India to amend its IP laws that would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of ‘Big Pharma’ and creating important pressure groups for the government.

Simultaneously, concerned pharma MNCs are also seeking legal recourse over issues mainly related to the section (3d) and Compulsory Licensing of the Indian Patents Act. However, most of the judicial verdicts vindicate the quality of decisions taken by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in these areas.

Though very unlikely, any amendment or tweaking of the existing patent laws of India in 2015 would provide an unfair advantage to MNCs with negative impact on public health interest.

D. Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices:

Compared to the actions that are now being taken by the law enforcers overseas against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices, India has been showing a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, until recently. It astonishes many that unlike even China; no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by the Indian media had triggered a debate in the country on the subject. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on this subject is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry.

The Government, until recently, has shown no active interest in this area either, though the new Union Health Minister, J.P. Nadda decried the unethical nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, amounting violations of medical ethics in the country. He reportedly has stated that in majority of the cases, the pharma companies are luring the doctors by giving gifts and other benefits for prescribing the brand of medicines of their choice to the patients.

As the saying goes, ‘better late than never’, on December 12, 2014, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which would be effective across the country from January 1, 2015 for all pharma players to implement, across India.

However, I reckon, the document in its current form is rather weak in its effective implementation potential. Meaningful and transparent deterrent measures to uphold public health interest are also lacking. The entire process also deserves a well-structured monitoring mechanism and digital implementation tools that can be operated with military precision. I discussed this issue in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, titled “India’s Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?”

On UCPMP a survey done by E&Y has highlighted the following points, besides other areas:

More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.

Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.

90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

In my view as well, the self-regulatory measures prescribed in the UCPMP of the DoP are unlikely to make any significant impact in 2015, unless pharma companies start focusing on building robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

Conclusion:

I would now put on the balance of probabilities, the new ‘Silver Linings’ of the Global pharmaceutical industry as discussed above, the issues and challenges of 2015 for the Indian pharma and also other important factors that I have not been able to discuss in this article. The overall emerging picture depicts that the pharma industry, both global and local, would fare much better than what it did in the recent past, provided the industry, as a whole, does not continue to ignore the storm signals outright.

Thus, based on the available data, the year 2015, as appears to me, would provide an enormous opportunity with promises of an interesting time ahead that the pharmaceutical industry should try to leverage on…and then cherish it for a long while…most probably as a turning point of the same ball game with different success requirements.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on October 20, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

Special 301 Report and OCR – A brief Background:

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

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

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

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

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

The Deadlines for written submissions were as follows:

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

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

India’s earlier response to 2014 Special 301 Report:

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

The issue was raised during PM’s US visit:

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

The Indo-US joint statement addresses remedial measures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fresh hurdle in the normalization process:

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

What does US want?

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

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

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

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

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

Global healthcare NGOs strongly reacted:

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

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

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

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

Under US bullying, is India developing cold feet?

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

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

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

A Superficial and baseless interpretation:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: IP

The Power Of Color And Design In Pharma Branding

TPP: Discord Within A Strange Mélange And Impact On Access To Medicines

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

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

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

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

Pharma Outlook 2015: A Glimpse Of Some Drivers and Barriers