Tag Archives: IPR

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D

Posted on by
Reply

The ghost of ‘Patent Cliff’ has been haunting the ‘Big Pharma’ since quite some time. This situation has been further aggravated by cost containment pressures of various Governments both in the developed and the emerging markets together with contentious issues on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The ‘dream run’ that the innovator companies enjoyed in launching patented products so frequently and making many those blockbuster drugs of billions of dollars, is no longer a reality.

According to the findings of ‘Pharmaceutical R&D returns performance’ by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters of December 2012, the R&D Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of leading pharmaceutical companies had fallen to 7.2 percent in 2012 from 7.7 percent in 2011.

Many would, therefore, tend to believe that the paradigm is changing significantly. The new paradigm in the brand new millennium throws some obnoxious challenges, including some related to IPR, triggering a process of churning in the global pharma industry. Some astute CEOs of ‘Big Pharma’, having a deep introspection, are bracing for restructuring, not just in the business processes, but also in the process of organizational behavior, mindset, ethics and values. Unfortunately, there are many who seem to believe that this giant wheel of change can be put on the reverse gear again with might.

A new PPP initiative in pharma research:

This trying situation calls for collaborative initiatives to achieve both knowledge and cost synergies for a quantum leap in harnessing R&D output.

One such big laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in this arena. Having experienced something like the ‘law of diminishing return’ in pursuit of high resource intensive R&D projects aimed at critical disease areas such as Alzheimer’s, 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

Not the first of its kind:

AMP is not the first PPP initiative of its kind. The Biomarkers Consortium was also another initiative, not quite the same though, of a major public-private biomedical research partnership managed by the Foundation for the NIH with broad participation from a variety of stakeholders, including government, industry, academia, patient advocacy groups and other not-for-profit private sector organizations.

Open innovation strategy of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to discover innovative drugs for malaria is yet another example, where GSK collaborated with the European Bioinformatics Institute and U.S. National Library of Medicine to make details of the molecule available to the researchers free of cost with an initial investment of US$ 8 million to set up the research facility in Spain, involving around 60 scientists from across the world to work in this facility. 

Nearer home, ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ project of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

Challenges in going solo:

In this context, it is worth mentioning that the CEO of Sanofi, Chris Viehbacher reportedly said in an interview on April 15, 2013 that his company “Won’t push hard to find an Alzheimer’s treatment because the science isn’t advanced enough to justify the costs to develop a drug. Therefore, Sanofi definitely won’t commit major resources seeking to discover an Alzheimer’s therapy.” He further stated, “I think we have to do a lot more basic science work to understand what’s going on. We really, at best, partially understand the cause of the disease. It’s hard to come up with meaningful targets.”

The above report also mentioned that the first Alzheimer’s drugs, should they prove successful, would lead to a market worth US$ 20 billion as estimated in 2012.

Long desired OSDD model:

The new AMP R&D model in the United States seems to have derived its impetus from the “open-source” wave that has swept the software industry. Keeping that spirit unchanged, in this particular ‘open source’ model too, the participants would share all scientific findings with the public and anyone would be able to use these results freely for their own research initiatives.

The collaborators of this PPP project are expected to gain a better understanding of how each disease type works, and thereafter could make use of that collaborative knowledge to discover appropriate new molecules for the target disease areas.

AMP is also expected to arrive at methods to measure a disease progression and its response to treatment much more precisely. This will enable the pharma participants getting more targets right and early, thereby reducing the high cost of failures. Just to cite an example, there have been reportedly 101 failures since 1998 in late-stage clinical trials by Pfizer, J&J and Elan Corp.

Commendable initiative in the uncharted frontier:

The ‘open source’ AMP initiative of ‘Big Pharma’ in the uncharted frontier is indeed very unusual, as the innovative drug companies are believed to be not just quite secretive about the science that they are engaged in, but also near obsessive in pursuing and clinging-on to the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) through patents for each innovative steps related to potential new drugs.

It is worth noting that like any OSDD model, this PPP agreement also denies the participating players from using any discovery for their own drug research up until the project makes all data public on that discovery.

However, as soon as the project results will be made public, fierce competition is expected all around to develop money-spinning winning drugs.

Participating companies:

Ten pharma companies participating in AMP are reportedly, AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Pfizer, Sanofi and Takeda. It is good to find within the participants some staunch business rivals. According to a report, a number of foundations, including the American Diabetes Association and the Alzheimer’s Association have also agreed to get involved in the project.

Some key non-participants:

For various different reasons some key pharma majors, such as, Amgen, Roche and AstraZeneca have decided not to participate in AMP.

AMP project and cost:

AMP reportedly has reportedly articulated its intent to: “Map molecular paths that each disease follows and to identify key points that could be targets for treatment. In Type 2 diabetes, for instance, researchers hope to catalog the genetic changes that raise or lower a person’s risk for developing the disease. It also will seek novel methods to measure each disease’s course while assessing if a potential drug is working. Being able to measure a disease’s progress in that way, could speed drug development by raising a company’s confidence that an experimental drug is working, or let it more quickly end a project if a drug isn’t working.”

The participating companies and the NIH have jointly agreed that the AMP would put together a research system on cost sharing basis by pooling the brightest minds who are experts on each disease, along with the best drug discovery laboratories, relevant data and samples from clinical trials to decipher the diseases in ways, which none of these pharma players has been able to achieve just yet on its own.

To achieve all these, the total cost has been estimated at roughly just US$ 230 million, as compared to US$135 billion that the global drug industry claims to spend in a year on R&D.

This should also be seen in context of a study of December 2012 carried out by the Office of Health Economics (OHE), UK with a grant from AstraZeneca, which estimated that the cost of developing new medicine has risen by ten times from US$100 million in the 1970s to as high as US$ 1.9 billion in 2011.

As a head honcho of a global pharma biggie had put it earlier, a large part of these R&D expenses are the costs of failure, as stated above.

Criticism:

As usual, criticism followed even for this path-breaking project. Critics have already started questioning the rationale of the choice of the above four disease areas, with an exception perhaps for Alzheimer’s and wondered whether the participating players are making use of the federal fund to push hard the envelope of their respective commercial intents.

Another new collaborative approach: 

In another recently announced collaborative initiative, though not of the same kind, where Merck & Co has reportedly entered three separate collaboration agreements to evaluate an immunotherapy cancer treatment that is part of a promising new class of experimental drugs that unleash the body’s immune system to target cancer cells.

Conclusion:

There could still be some hiccups in the process of effective implementation of the AMP project. Hope, all these, if any, will be amicably sorted out by the participants of stature for the benefits of all.

Be that as it may, ‘open source’ model of drug discovery, as believed by many, would be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source’ philosophy by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world for newer and innovative drugs.

According to available reports, one of the key advantages of the ‘open source’ model would be substantial reduction in the high cost of failures of R&D projects, which coupled with significant saving in time would immensely reduce ‘mind-to-market’ span of innovative drugs in various disease areas, making these medicines affordable to many more patients.

Thus, PPP initiatives in pharmaceutical R&D, such as AMP, are expected to have immense potential to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders, harvesting substantial benefits both for the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients, across the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

 

 

“India is The Biggest Battlefield for Intellectual Property Rights”

Posted on by
Reply

The US Senator Orrin Hatch reportedly made the above comment while introducing the 2014 report on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’, prepared by an Israel based consultancy firm – Pugatch Consilium for the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of the US Chamber of Commerce. In this forum, the Senator further alleged, “India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries”.

Similar comment on South African IP Policy:

It is interesting to note that this ‘Battle Cry’ on IPR follows almost similar belligerent utterance of a Washington DC-based lobbying firm named ‘Public Affairs Engagement (PAE)’, reportedly headed by a former US ambassador Mr. James Glassman.

PAE, in a recent South African IP policy related context, as deliberated in my earlier blog titled, “Big Pharma’s Satanic Plot is Genocide”: South Africa Roars”, had stated in January 2014, “Without a vigorous campaign, opponents of strong IP will prevail, not just in South Africa, but eventually in much of the rest of the developing world.”

The GIPC report:

That said, in the GIPC report, India featured at the bottom of 25 countries on Intellectual Property (IP) protection with a score of 6.95 out of 30. Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Argentina also scored low in overall ranking on protection for patents, copyright and trademarks. The United States ranked at the top, followed closely by Britain and France.

Interestingly, no country could register a “perfect” score in the survey, which used 30 factors ranging from levels of counterfeiting and piracy to patents and legal protections for all kinds of products and services ranging from pharmaceuticals to software to Hollywood films.

Among other BRIC countries, Russia with a score of 13.28, China with 11.62 and Brazil with 10.83, ranked 13th, 17th and 19th, respectively, within the selected 25 countries.

Key reasons, especially related to pharmaceuticals, as cited for the poor rating of India are as follows:

  • “Patentability requirements in violations of TRIPS”
  • “Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) not available”
  • “Patent term restoration not available”
  • “Use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial non-emergency situation”

The ground reality in India:

The answers to all these questions are much discussed and now an integral part of Indian Patents Act, as enacted by the Parliament of the country after prolong deliberations by the astute lawmakers keeping patients’ interest at the center.

As I had indicated earlier, there does not seem to be any possibility of these laws getting amended now or in foreseeable future, despite the above ‘Battle Cry’, Special 301 Watch List of the US, and continuous poor rating by the US Chamber of Commerce. This is mainly because of humanitarian sentiments attached to this issue, which are robust and sensitive enough to ignore even politically in India. Let me try to address all these 4 points briefly as follows:

“Patentability requirements in violations of TRIPS”:

Patentability is related mainly to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. India has time and again reiterated that this provision is TRIPS compliant. If there are still strong disagreements in the developed world, the Dispute Settlement Body of the ‘World Trade Organization (WTO)’can be approached for a resolution, as the WTO has clearly articulated as follows:

“WTO members have agreed that if they believe fellow-members are violating trade rules, they will use the multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally. That means abiding by the agreed procedures, and respecting judgments. A dispute arises when one country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or more fellow-WTO members considers to be breaking the WTO agreements, or to be a failure to live up to obligations.”

Thus, it is quite challenging to fathom, why those countries, instead of creating so much of hullabaloo, are not following the above approach in the WTO for the so called ‘patentability’ issue in India?

“Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) not available”:

In this context, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma had reportedly asserted earlier at a meeting of consultative committee of the Parliament as follows:

“India does not provide data exclusivity for pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals which is in the paramount interest of our generic pharmaceutical industry as grant of data exclusivity would have considerable impact in delaying the entry into the market of cheaper generic drugs.”

Hence, the question of having RDP in India does not possibly arise, at least, in near to mid term, which would require moving an amendment in the relevant Act through the Parliament.

“Patent term restoration not available”:

Again, this provision does not exist in the Indian Patents Act. Hence, in this case too, a change does not seem likely, at least, in near to mid term, by bringing an amendment through the Parliament.

“Use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial non-emergency situation”:

Besides situations like, national emergency or extreme urgency, the current CL provisions, as per the Indian Patents Act, specifically state that at any time after the expiration of three years from the grant of patent, any interested person may make an application to the Patent Controller for grant of patent on the following grounds:

  • Whether the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have been satisfied?
  • Whether the patented invention is available to the public at a reasonable affordable price?
  • Whether the patented invention is worked in the territory of India?

It is worth mentioning, the Government has no authority to direct any individual for not applying for any CL under the above provision of the statute, hence law will take its own course in this area too, unless an amendment through Parliament is made in the Patents Act, which seems very unlikely again in the near to medium term.

Eyebrows raised on methodology and motive behind the ‘IP Index’ report:

Media report indicates that IP experts in India have questioned the methodology and even the motive behind GIPC’s ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’ where India has been ranked the lowest among 25 countries.

The same article quotes a well-known IP expert saying, “Underlying this report is a major paradox that protecting weak patents makes the IP regime a strong one. Countries such as India that have stood up for genuine innovation and refused to protect trivial inventions have been accused of having ‘weak’ IP regimes, while it should have been the other way round.”

The article also mentions that Pugatch Consilium, which provides advisory services to top global drug makers and their trade associations, drafted the report for the US Chamber of Commerce.

Conclusion:

Keeping aside the strong allegation that the GIPC report has some ulterior motive behind, the high profile PR blitzkrieg of the pharma multinational trade associations, quite in tandem with South African outburst on the same IP issue, as I wrote in my blog post “Big Pharma’s Satanic Plot is Genocide”: South Africa Roars”, is indeed noteworthy.

However, even if one goes purely by the merits of the report with GIPC’s reasoning on ‘Why is India losing ground’, I reckon, despite so much of cost-intensive efforts and pressures by the global pharma lobbying groups, their expectation for a change in the pharma patents regime in India, any time soon, is probably much more than just a wishful thinking.

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.

 

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate

Posted on by
Reply

The ‘Big Pharma’ prowls faltered yet again exposing the ‘fault line’ to all, when the GSK global head honcho, a pharma icon in his own right, Sir Andrew Witty supported the pharmaceutical policy of India, while in the country earlier this month. This support is quite in contrary to arrogant displeasure being expressed by his MNC counterparts against the pharma regime in India up until now.

Sir Andrew reportedly spoke against the usual pharma MNC practices of charging very high prices for patented medicines during an interview and said that multinationals need to look at things from India’s perspective. 

The above comment, when analyzed especially in context of one of the recent actions of Big Pharma MNCs complaining in writing to President Obama against India’s prevailing pharmaceutical regime, the fault line gets clearly visible.

In this context, a recent report captured the anger and desperation of Big Pharma. This hostility vindicates the general apprehensions in India that MNCs are once again pushing for a stringent patent regime in the country, against the general health interest of Indian patients for access to affordable newer medicines.

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report reconfirmed the impatient prowl of the mighty lobby group in the corridors of power. This piece states, “Recent policy and judicial decisions (Glivec judgment and Nexavar) that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate.” 

The ‘fault line’, thus surfaced, triggers off yet another critical debate, especially related to the slugfest on a stringent pharmaceutical product patent regime in India, as follows:

“Does Stricter IPR Regime Spur Pharma Innovation?”

Global innovator companies strongly argue that stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and stricter enforcement of IP laws have strong link with fostering innovation leading to a robust economic growth for any nation.

However, another group of thought leaders opine just the opposite. They argue that strong IPR and IP laws have little, if any, to do with fostering innovation and economic growth, as there are no robust research findings to drive home the above point.

It has been noticed that the MNC lobby groups quite often very cleverly use their magic word ‘innovation’ on a slightest pretext with an underlying desire of having a ‘very strict patent regime’ in India. Thus they seem to be trying to mislead the common man, as if India is against innovation.

Comment of the Chairman of National Innovation Council of India:

On September 15, 2012, while delivering his keynote address in a pharmaceutical industry function, Dr. Sam Pitroda, the Chicago based Indian, creator of the telecom revolution in India, Chairman of the National innovation Council and the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure & Innovations, made a profound comment for all concerned to ponder, as follows:

“Everyone wants to copy the American model of development.  I feel that this model is not scalable, sustainable, desirable and workable.  We have to find an Indian Model of development which focuses on affordability, scalability and sustainability.”

Recent Indian stand:

On March 5, 2013, the Government of India made a profound statement on the subject of ‘Innovation and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)’ at the TRIPS Council meeting covering the following points:

  • There is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries.
  • The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focused governmental interventions.
  • The proponents of this Agenda Item have reached the present stage of technological development by focusing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the IPRs of the foreigners or the right holders.
  • After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a ‘TRIPS plus’ regime.
  • Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through stringent IP regime.
  • It is essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

A Wharton Professor’s view:

As the Wharton professor of Healthcare Management Mark V. Pauly has been quoted saying that the link between patent protection and innovation has never been definitely proven.

However, Pauly reportedly is aware that the innovator global pharma companies do say, ‘If you don’t allow us to reap the benefits of our R&D expenditure, we won’t put as much into it, and we won’t invent as many great things’.

However, the Wharton Professor counters it by saying, “The problem is that nobody really knows how much less innovation there would be if there were less patent protection. We just don’t know what the numbers are.”

The above report says, according to Pauly, the onus to prove that patent protection matters should be on the drug industry itself.

He argues, “Rather than always just insisting you should never limit intellectual property protection, they really ought to develop some evidence to show that without that protection, there would be an impact on the rate of adoption of new products. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody knows the facts.“

A French Professor’s view:

In another WIPO seminar held on June 18, 2013, Margaret Kyle, a Professor at the Toulouse School of Economics and the Université de Toulouse I in France, reportedly presented preliminary findings of a study.

This paper explored in detail the impact of World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in various areas related to the speed of launch, price, and volume of sales of drugs across countries and across different drug products.

In this study, as the above report states, Kyle analyzed the trade-off between the dynamic and static effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

The dynamic effect of IPRs was considered as an incentive for innovation based on the general belief that patent protection, through granting market exclusivity, incentivizes companies to invest in the research and development (R&D) to develop new drugs.

On the other hand, the static effect of IPRs in the short term is that granting market exclusivity often leads to innovator companies pricing their products at levels, which will be unaffordable by a large number of patients, especially in lower-income countries.

Kyle explained that the results implied as follows:

  • IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to launch new pharmaceutical products.
  • The existence of a product patent does not always inhibit generic imitation, nor does the lack of such a patent necessarily deter an originator from making a product available in a given market.

Other eminent voices:

While highlighting that TRIPS-Plus intellectual property protection is passed by some developing countries in order to implement FTA obligations, another recent paper presents the following examples in support of the argument that there no correlation between strong IP laws and fostering innovation:

  • UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. 2002. (Link)

“…Strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries… The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”

  • Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights in the International System.  LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York. 2003

“…No consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed significantly to economic growth cross-nationally.  Furthermore, when the nations are split into developed and developing countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge.”

  • Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic Research. 2005. (Link)

“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI.  At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”

“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also need to take into account the costs of administering and enforcing a reformed IPR system”

“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses internationally.”

  • Keith Mascus. “Incorporating a Globalized Intellectual Property Rights Regime Into an Economic Development Strategy.”  Ch. 15 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies.  Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”

“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote significant development resources to legal reforms and enforcement of IPR.”

  • Kamal Saggi. “Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer via Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Ch. 13 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this stage.  What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in those countries through more learning and local innovation.”

  • Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. “Study on the Economic Impact of ‘TRIPS-Plus’ Free Trade Agreements.”  International Intellectual Property Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011.

“TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as ‘important, but not essential’ for attracting investment. Many other factors matter like, taxes, human capital, clustering, etc.”

Patients versus Patents:

Another recent  article on this subject states as follows:

“Compulsory licensing and stricter patentability standards allow domestic manufacturers to produce lower-cost versions of patented NCD medications and break into lucrative therapeutic areas, such as oncology, in which multinational drug firms are heavily invested.”

The paper clearly highlights, “If patients are pitted against patents, international support for IP protection—upon which drug firms and many other developed country industries now heavily rely—will again diminish.”

Yet another article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 states:

“Patents are government-granted monopolies. As monopolies, they can drive the prices of drugs up dramatically. For example, in 2000, when only patented antiretroviral drugs for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection were widely available, they cost approximately $10,000 per person per year, even in very poor countries. Today, these same medicines cost $150 or less if they are purchased from Indian generics companies…. patents cause especially acute problems for access to medicines in developing countries – not only because of low incomes but also because insurance and price-control systems are often absent or inadequate.” 

A WHO Report:

To chart the way forward at the backdrop of ongoing global debate elated to the relationship between intellectual property rights, innovation and public health, the World Health Assembly decided in May 2003 to give an independent Commission the task of analyzing this key issue. Accordingly, the Director-General of WHO established the Commission in February 2004. This report titled, “Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” was published in 2006 and articulated that neither innovation nor access depend on just intellectual property rights and highlighted, among others, the following:

  • Intellectual property rights have an important role to play in stimulating innovation in health-care products in countries where financial and technological capacities exist, and in relation to products for which profitable markets exist.
  • In developing countries, the fact that a patent can be obtained may contribute nothing or little to innovation if the market is too small or scientific and technological capability inadequate.
  • In the absence of effective differential and discounted prices, patents may contribute to increasing the price of medicines needed by poor people in those countries.
  • Although the balance of costs and benefits of patents will vary between countries, according to their level of development and scientific and technological infrastructure, the flexibility built into the TRIPS agreement allows countries to find a balance more appropriate to the circumstances of each country.

India – now the most attractive global investment destination:

Trashing the anger and displeasure of pharma MNCs, as per the latest international survey, India reportedly has emerged as the most attractive global investment destination followed by Brazil and China. It is worth noting that even recently, during April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in the FDI landscape of India.

Conclusion:

In the Indian context, a 2013 paper titled, “Intellectual Property Protection and Health Innovation: Concerns for India” published by Center for WTO Studies highlights that the regime change in the patent system has not been very supportive for improving access to medicines in India. It reiterates, it has not been established yet that a stricter patent regime in the developing countries like India, has helped health innovation and access to medicines at economically viable prices.

The paper recommends, although India is trying to incorporate all the flexibilities under TRIPS in its Patents Act, the ‘Indian Policy Makers’ should not give in to the pressure of western powers to make IPR more stringent in the country.

In the backdrop of arrogance exhibited by Big Pharma MNCs, in general, against Indian policies and judicial verdicts on this subject, the comments made by Sir Andrew on the issue, as deliberated above, are indeed profound and far reaching. However, it clearly exposes the fault line in the collective mindset of pharma MNCs, without any ambiguity.

I shall not be surprised either, if clever attempts are made now by the MNC lobby groups to negate or trivialize the profoundness of this visionary statement not just in India, but beyond its shores, as well.

Further, as stated above recent emergence of India as the most attractive global investment destination with pharma leading the deck is a point worth noting, more in the context of policy and statutes that India has decided to follow.

Be that as it may, it is beyond the scope of any doubt that innovation or for that matter encouraging innovation still remains the wheel of progress of any nation.

However, have we garnered enough evidence yet, to establish that stringent IPR regime with absolute pricing freedom would lead to fostering more innovation leading to well-being of people of the developing countries, like India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

 

Balancing IPR with Public Health Interest: Brickbats, Power Play and Bouquets

Posted on by
Reply

It is now a widely accepted dictum that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially pharma patents, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet as expensive, if not more than the original ones. In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

The terminology ‘evergreening‘ usually ‘refers to a strategy employed by many pharmaceutical companies to extend their market monopoly by slightly changing the existing molecules and obtaining new patents to continue to enjoy market exclusivity and pricing freedom, which otherwise would not have been possible.

Path breaking or jaw-drooping ‘W-O-W’ types of innovations are not so many. Thus most of the patented drugs launched globally over the last several decades are indeed some sort of ‘me-too drugs’ and generally considered as ‘low hanging fruits’ of R&D, not being able to offer significantly greater value to patients than already exiting ones. Many of these drugs have also achieved blockbuster status for the concerned companies, backed by high voltage marketing over a reasonably long period of time. It is understandable, therefore, that from pure business perspective why serious global efforts are being made to push the same contentious system in India too.

Example of some of these molecules (not necessarily in the written order), are as follows:

  • Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)
  • Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)
  • Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

However, pharmaceutical companies do argue that such ‘incremental innovations’ are the bedrock for growth of the pharmaceutical industry and are essential to continue to fund pharmaceutical research and development.

An interesting paper:

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

  • Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.
  • A study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:
  1. Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘ever-greening’ pharmaceutical patents that    can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.
  2. Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive step are used to grant patents.
  3. Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.
  4. Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

A remarkable similarity with the Indian Patents Act:

The findings of the above study have a striking similarity with the Indian Patents Act. As per this Act, to be eligible for grant of patents in India, the pharmaceutical products must pass the ‘two-step’ acid test of:

  • Following the inventive step: Defined under Section 2(ja) of the Patents Act as follows:

“Inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

  • Passing scrutiny of Section 3(d) of the law: It categorically states, inventions that are a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable.

Supreme Court of India clarifies it:

The Honorable Supreme Court of India in page 90 of its its landmark Glivec judgement has clearly pronounced that all ‘incremental innovations’ may not be trivial or frivolous in nature. However, only those ‘incremental innovations’, which will satisfy the requirements of both the above Sections of the Act, wherever applicable, will be eligible for grant of patents in India. 

An opposite view:

Another paper presents a different view altogether. It states that incremental improvements on existing drugs have great relevance to overall increases in the quality of healthcare.

With the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, such drugs have helped the physicians to treat diverse group of patients. They also represent advances in safety, efficacy along with newer dosing options significantly increasing patient compliance.

The paper claims that ‘even from an economic standpoint, expanding drug classes represent the possibility of lower drug prices as competition between manufacturers is increased’.  It states that any policy aimed at curbing incremental innovation will ultimately lead to a reduction in the overall quality of existing drug classes and may ultimately curb the creation of novel drugs.

Pricing:

Experts, on the other hand, argue, if patents are granted to such ‘incremental innovations’ at all, their prices need to be determined by quantifying ‘Incremental Value’ that patients will derive out of these inventions as compared to the generic versions of respective original molecules.

Use of such drugs may lead to wasteful expenditure:

A large majority of stakeholders also highlight, though many of such drugs will have cheaper or generic alternatives, physicians are persuaded by the pharma players to prescribe higher cost patented medicines with the help of expensive avoidable marketing tools, leading to wasteful expenditure for all. The issue of affordability for these drugs is also being raised, especially, in the Indian context.

  • The ‘2012 Express Scripts Canada Drug Trend Report’ unfolded that the use of higher-cost medications without offering additional patient benefits resulted in waste of $3.9 billion annually in Canada.
  • Another recent Geneva-based study concluded as follows:

“Evergreening strategies for follow-on drugs contribute to overall healthcare costs. It also implies that policies that encourage prescription of generic drugs could induce saving on healthcare expenditure. Healthcare providers and policymakers should be aware of the impact of evergreening strategies on overall healthcare costs.”

  • Some other studies reportedly revealed, “Medicines sold in France are 30 times more expensive than what it costs pharmaceutical companies pay to manufacture them.” Industry observers opine, if that is happening in France what about India? Quoting experts the same report comments, “If pharmaceutical companies are forced to follow moral and human values, it could save the tax payer at least 10 billion euros, an amount which could fill up the deficit of the national health care system.”
  • Yet another article questioned, “What if a physician is paid speaking or consulting fees by a drug maker and then prescribes its medicine, even if there is no added benefit compared with cheaper alternatives?”

More debate:

According to a paper titled, ‘Patented Drug Extension Strategies on Healthcare Spending: A Cost-Evaluation Analysis’ published by PLOS Medicine, European public health experts estimate that pharmaceutical companies have developed “evergreening” strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These are usually slightly modified versions of the existing drugs.

Following are some brands, which were taken as examples for evergreening:

S.No.

Evergreen

Medical Condition

Original Brand

1.

 Levocetirizine (Vozet) Allergies Cetirizine (Zyrtec)

2.

 Escitalopram (Lexapro) Depression Citalopram (Celexa)

3.

 Esomeprazole (Nexium) Acid reflux Omeprazole (Prilosec)

4.

 Desloratadine (Clarinex) Allergies Loratadine (Claritan)

5.

 Zolpidem Extended Release (Ambien CR) Insomnia Zolpidem (Ambien)

6.

 Pregabalin (Lyrica) Seizures Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Source: Medical Daily, June 4, 2013

In this study, the researchers calculated that evergreening – where pharmaceutical companies slightly modify a drug molecule to extend its patent, had cost an extra 30 million euros to the healthcare system in Geneva between 2000 and 2008. The authors argue that ‘evergreening’ strategies, “more euphemistically called as ‘life cycle management’ are sometimes questionable benefit to society.”

As the paper highlights, in this scenario the companies concerned rely on brand equity of the original molecule with newer and more innovative marketing campaigns to generate more prescriptions and incurring in that process expenses nearly twice as much on marketing than on research and development.

Brickbats:

In this context, recently a lawmaker rom America reportedly almost lambasted India as follows:

“I’m very concerned with the deterioration in the environment for protection of US intellectual property rights and innovation in India. The government of India continues to take actions that make it very difficult for US innovative pharmaceutical companies to secure and enforce their patents in India.“ 

On this, the Indian experts comment, if the situation is so bad in India, why doesn’t  America get this dispute sorted out by lodging a formal complaint against India in the WTO, just as what India contemplated to do, when consignments of generic drugs of Indian manufacturers were confiscated at the European ports, alleging those are counterfeit medicines.

Yet another recent news item highlighted a “concerted effort, which involves letters from US corporations and business groups to the president, testimony by Obama administration officials before Congress, and lawmakers’ own critiques, came ahead of US secretary of state John Kerry’s trip to India later this month (has already taken place by now) for the annual strategic dialogue, which will precede Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington DC in September.”

The report stated, the above letter complained that over the last year, “courts and policymakers in India have engaged in a persistent pattern of discrimination designed to benefit India’s business community at the expense of American jobs … Administrative and court rulings have repeatedly ignored internationally recognized rights — imposing arbitrary marketing restrictions on medical devices and denying, breaking, or revoking patents for nearly a dozen lifesaving medications.” 


At a recent Congressional hearing of the United States, 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.”

Indian experts respond to these allegations by saying, patent disputes, patent challenges, revocation of patents, compulsory licensing etc. are all following a well-articulated judicial process of the country, where Indian government has hardly any role to play or intervene. American government and lawmakers are also expected to respect the rule of law in all such cases instead of trying to denigrate the Indian system.

The Power Play:

This short video clipping captures the Power Play in America on this matter.

The Government of India responds:

Ministry of Commerce and Industries of India reportedly countered the allegations of the United States over patents to the US Trade Representive arguing that the Indian IPR regime is fully TRIPS-compliant and Indian Patents Act “encourages genuine innovation by discouraging trivial, frivolous innovation, which leads to evergreening”.

Countries adopting the Indian model:

The above report also highlighted as follows:

  • Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents.
  • Peru, Columbia, other South American countries have placed curbs.
  • Philippines has similar provisions.
  • Australia is contemplating making the law tougher.

Revised report of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee:

Even the revised (March 2009) ‘Report of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) on Patent Law Issues’, the TEG, chaired by the well-known scientist Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, in point number 5.30 of their report recommended as follows:

“Every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘evergreening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product.  The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits.  Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Bouquets:

As stated above, many experts across the world believe, the criticism that Section 3 (d) is not TRIPS Agreement compliant is unfounded, as no such complaint has been lodged with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in this matter, thus far. The safeguards provided in the patent law of India will help the country to avoid similar issues now being faced by many countries. Importantly, neither does the section 3(d) stop all ‘incremental innovations’ in India.

Quoting a special adviser for health and development at South Centre, a think tank based in Geneva, Switzerland, a recent report indicated, “Many developing countries will follow India’s example to protect the rights of their populations to have access to essential medicines”.

Yet another report quoting an expert articulates, “India’s top court’s decision affirms India’s position and policy on defining how it defines inventions from a patenting point of view for its development needs. It challenges the patenting standards and practices of the developed countries which are the ones really in much need of reform.”

The Honorable Supreme Court in its Glivec judgment has also confirmed that such safeguard provisions in the statute are expected to withstand the test of time to protect public health interest in India and do not introduce any form of unreasonable restrictions on patentability of drug inventions.

Conclusion:

Not withstanding the report of the US-India Business Council (USIBC) titled ‘The Value of Incremental Innovation: Benefits for Indian Patients and Indian Business’, arguing for abolition of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act to pave the way for patentability for all types of incremental innovations in pharmaceuticals, realistically it appears extremely challenging.

As the paper quoted first in this article suggests, denial of patents for inventions of dubious value extending effective patent period through additional patents, is a significant safeguard to protect public health interest. This statutory provision will also pave the way for quick introduction of generics on expiry of the original patent.

Taking all these developments into active consideration, keen industry watchers do believe, for every effort towards balancing IPR with Public Health Interest, both brickbats and bouquets will continue to be showered in varying proportion together with the mounting pressure of power play, especially from the developed world and still for some more time.

However, in India this critical balancing factor seems to have taken its root not just deep and strong, but in all probabilities - both politically and realistically, the law is now virtually irreversible, come what may.

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.

 

 

Patent Conundrum: Ignoring India Will Just Not be Foolhardy, Not An Option Either

Posted on by
Reply

The recent verdict of the Supreme Court against Novartis, upholding the decision of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) against grant of patent to their cancer drug Glivec, based on Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, has caused a flutter and utter discontentment within the global pharmaceutical industry across the world.

However, on this verdict, the Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy has reportedly opined, “Recent decisions by the courts in India have led to a lot of protest by pharmaceutical companies. But decisions made by an independent judiciary have to be respected as such.”

The above decision on Glivec came close on the heels of IPO’s decision to grant its first ever Compulsory License (CL) to the Indian drug manufacturer Natco, last year, for the kidney cancer drug Nexavar of Bayer.

Interestingly, no member of the World Trade Organization has raised any concern on these issues, as the Head of WTO, Lamy recently confirmed, “No country has objected to India issuing compulsory license or refusing patent for drugs.” He further added, “TRIPS provides flexibilities that allow countries to issue compulsory licenses for patented medicines to address health urgencies.”

That said, simmering unhappiness within innovator companies on various areas of Indian patent laws is indeed quite palpable. Such discontent being expressed by many interested powerful voices is now reverberating in the corridors of power both in India and overseas.

Point and Counterpoint:

Although experts do opine that patent laws of India are well balanced, takes care of public health interest, encourage innovation and discourage evergreening, many global innovator companies think just the opposite. They feel, an appropriate ecosystem to foster innovation does not exist in India and their IP, by and large, is not safe in the country. The moot question is, therefore, ‘Could immediate fallout of this negative perception prompt them to ignore India or even play at a low key in this market?’

Looking at the issue from Indian perspective:

If we take this issue from the product patent perspective, India could probably be impacted in the following two ways:

  1. New innovative products may not be introduced in India
  2. The inflow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the pharma sector may get seriously restricted.

Let us now examine the possible outcome of each of these steps one at a time.

Will India be deprived of newer innovative drugs?

If the innovator companies decide to ignore India by not launching such products in the country, they may take either of the following two steps:

  1. Avoid filing a patent in India
  2. File a patent but do not launch the product

Keeping the emerging scenario in perspective, it will be extremely challenging for the global players to avoid the current patent regime in India, even if they do not like it. This is mainly because of the following reasons:

1. If an innovator company decides not to file a product patent in India, it will pave the way for Indian companies to introduce copy-cat versions of the same in no time, as it were, at a fractional price in the Indian market.

2. Further, there would also be a possibility of getting these copycat versions exported to the unregulated markets of the world from India at a very low price, causing potential business loss to the innovator companies.

3. If any innovator company files a product patent in India, but does not work the patent within the stipulated period of three years, as provided in the patent law of the country, in that case any Indian company can apply for CL for the same with a high probability of such a request being granted by the Patent Controller. 

A market too attractive to ignore:

India as a pharmaceutical market is quite challenging to ignore, despite its ‘warts and moles’ for various reasons. The story of increasing consumption of healthcare in India, including pharmaceuticals, especially when the country is expected to be one of the top 10 pharmaceutical markets in the world, is too enticing for any global player to ignore, despite unhappiness in various areas of business.

Increasing affordability of the fast growing middle-class population of the country will further drive the growth of this market, which is expected to register a value turnover of US$50 billion by 2020, as estimated by PwC.

PwC report also highlights that a growing and increasingly sophisticated pharmaceutical industry of India is gradually becoming a competitor of global pharma in some key areas, on the one hand and a potential partner in others, as is being witnessed today by many.

Despite urbanization, nearly 70 percent of the total population of India still lives in the rural villages. Untapped potential of the rural markets is expected to provide another boost to the growth momentum of the industry.

Too enticing to exit:

Other ‘Enticing Factors’ for India, in my views, may be considered as follows:

  • A country with 1.13 billion populations and a GDP of US$ 1.8 trillion in 2011 is expected to grow at an average of 8.2 percent in the next five-year period.
  • Public health expenditure to more than double from 1.1 percent of the GDP to 2.5 percent of GDP in the Twelfth Five Year Plan period (2012-17)
  • Government will commence rolling out ‘Universal Health Coverage’ initiative
  • Budget allocation of US$ 5.4 billion announced towards free distribution of essential medicines from government hospitals and health centers.
  • Greater plan outlay announced for NRHM, NUHM and RSBY projects.
  • Rapidly growing more prosperous middle class population of the country.
  • Fast growing domestic generic drug manufacturers who will have increasing penetration in both local and emerging markets.
  • Rising per capita income of the population and relative in-efficiency of the public healthcare systems will encourage private healthcare services of various types and scales to flourish.
  • Expected emergence of a robust health insurance model for all strata of society as the insurance sector is undergoing reform measures.
  • Fast growing Medical Tourism.
  • World-class local outsourcing opportunities for a combo-business model with both patented and branded generic drugs.

Core issues in patent conundrum:

I reckon, besides others, there are three core issues in the patent conundrum in India as follows, other issues can be sorted out by following:

1. ‘Pricing’ strategy of patented products: A large population across the globe believes that high prices of patented products severely restrict their access to many and at the same time increases the cost of healthcare even for the Governments very significantly.

2. To obtain a drug patent in India, passing the test of inventive steps will not just be enough, the invention should also pass the acid test of patentability criteria, to prevent evergreening, as enshrined in the laws of the land. Many other countries are expected to follow India in this area, in course of time. For example, after Philippines and Argentina, South Africa now reportedly plans to overhaul its patent laws by “closing a loophole known as ‘ever-greening’ used by drug companies to extend patent protection and profits”. Moreover, there does not seem to be any possibility to get this law amended by the Indian Parliament now or after the next general election.

3. Probably due to some legal loopholes, already granted patents are often violated without following the prescribed processes of law in terms of pre or post – grant challenges before and after launch of such products. There is a need for the government to plug all such legal loopholes, after taking full stock of the prevailing situation in this area, without further delay.

Some Global CEOs spoke on this issue:

In this context the Global CEO of GSK commented in October 18, 2012 that while intellectual property protection is an important aspect of ensuring that innovation is rewarded, the period of exclusivity in a country should not determine the price of the product. Witty said, ‘At GSK we will continuously strive to defend intellectual property, but more importantly, defend tier pricing to make sure that we have appropriate pricing for the affordability of the country and that’s why, in my personal view, our business in India has been so successful for so long.’

Does all in the global pharma industry share this view? 

Not really. All in the global pharmaceutical industry does not necessarily seem to share the above views of Andrew Witty and believe that to meet the unmet needs of patients, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of innovative products must be strongly protected by the governments of all countries putting in place a robust product patent regime and the pricing of such products should not come in the way at all.

The industry also argues that to recover high costs of R&D and manufacturing of such products together with making a modest profit, the innovator companies set a product price, which at times may be perceived as too high for the marginalized section of the society, where government intervention is required more than the innovator companies. Aggressive marketing activities, the industry considers, during the patent life of a product, are essential to gain market access for such drugs to the patients.

In support of the pharmaceutical industry the following argument was put forth in a recent article:

“The underlying goal of every single business is to make money. People single out pharmaceutical companies for making profits, but it’s important to remember that they also create products that save millions of lives.”

How much then to charge for a patented drug? 

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally.

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

Should India address ‘Patented Products’ Pricing’ issue with HTA model?

Though some people hate the mechanism of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to determine price of a patented drug, I reckon, it could be a justifiable and logical answer to price related pharmaceutical patent conundrum in India.

Health Technology Assessment, as many will know, examines the medical, economic, social and ethical implications of the incremental value of a medical technology or a drug in healthcare.

HTA, in that process, will analyze the costs of inputs and the output in terms of their consequences or outcomes. With in-depth understanding of these components, the policy makers decide the value of an intervention much more precisely.

Companies like, Merck, Pfizer and GSK have reportedly imbibed this mechanism to arrive at a value of the invention. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authorities (NPPA) may well consider this approach for a well judged, scientific and transparent pricing decision mechanism in India, especially for innovative new drugs.

Could local manufacturing be an option?

Considering relatively higher volume sales in India, to bring down the price, the global companies may consider manufacturing their patented products in India with appropriate technology transfer agreements being in place and could even make India as one of their export hubs, as a couple of their counterparts have already initiated.

Accepting the reality responsibly:

In view of the above, the global pharmaceutical players, as experts believe, should take note of the following factors. All these could help, while formulating their India-specific game plan to be successful in the country, without worrying much about invocation of Compulsory License (CL) for not meeting ‘Reasonably Affordable Price’ criterion, as provided in the Patents Act of the country:

  • While respecting IPR and following Doha declaration, the government focus on ‘reasonably affordable drug prices’ will be even sharper due to increasing pressure from the Civil Society, Indian Parliament and also from the Courts of the country triggered by ‘Public Interest Litigations (PIL)’
  • India will continue to remain within the ‘modest-margin’ range for the pharmaceutical business with marketing excellence driven volume turnover.
  • Although innovation will continue to be encouraged with IPR protection, the amended Patents Act of India is ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented, including restrictions on patentability, which, based on early signals, many other countries are expected to follow as we move on.
  • This situation though very challenging for many innovator companies, is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, even under pressure of various “Free Trade Agreements (FTA)”.  

Sectors Attracting Highest FDI Equity inflows:

When one looks at the FDI equity inflow from April 2000 to March 2013 period as follows, it does not appear that FDI inflow in Drugs and Pharmaceuticals had any unusual impact due to ‘Patent Conundrums’ in the country at any time:

Ranks Sector

US$ Million

1. Service Sector

37,151
2. Construction Development:(Township, Housing, Built-up infrastructure)

22,008
3 Telecommunication(Radio paging, Cellular mobile,Basic telephone services)

12,660
4 Computer Software &Hardware

11,671
5 Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

10,309
6 Chemical

8,861
7 Automobile Industry

8,061
8 Power

7,828
9 Metallurgical Industries

7,434
10 Hotel & Tourism

6,589

Further, if we look at the FDI trend of the last three years, the conclusion probably will be similar.

Year

US$ Million.
2010-11

177.96
2011-12

2,704.63
2012-13

1,103.70

(Source: Fact Sheet on Foreign Investments, DIPP, Government of India)

Conclusion:

In search of excellence in India, global pharmaceutical companies will need to find out innovative win-win strategies adapting themselves to the legal requirements for business in the country, instead of trying to get the laws changed.

India, at the same time, should expeditiously address the issue of blatant patent infringements by some Indian players exploiting the legal loopholes and set up fast track courts to resolve all IP related disputes without inordinate delay.

Responsible drug pricing, public health oriented patent regime, technology transfer/local manufacturing of patented products and stringent regulatory requirements in all pharmaceutical industry related areas taking care of patients’ interest, are expected to be the key areas to address in the business models of global pharmaceutical companies for India.

Moreover,it is worth noting that any meaningful and long term FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of India will come mostly through investments in R&D and manufacturing. Such FDI may not be forthcoming without any policy compulsions, like in China. Hence, many believe, the orchestrated bogey of FDI for the pharmaceutical industry in India, other than brownfield acquisitions in the generics space, is just like dangling a carrot, as it were, besides being blatantly illusive.

Even with all these, India will continue to remain too lucrative a pharmaceutical market to ignore by any. Thus, I reckon, despite a high decibel patent conundrum, any thought to ignore or even be indifferent to Indian pharmaceutical market by any global player could well be foolhardy.

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.

 

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

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

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

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

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

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

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d): 

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.” 

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

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

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

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

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

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

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

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

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

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

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

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an  injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

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

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

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

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

  1. Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
  2. Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
  3. Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
  4. Development of the R&D capacity and expertise
 of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
  6. Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that    over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor: 

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented,  “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young  India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

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

Reaping reach harvest: 

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

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

The ‘Trigger Factor’: 

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

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

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

 A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged: 

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

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

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

Increasing incidence of cancer in India: 

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

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

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

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

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

High incidence of breast cancer: 

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

Government is mulling CL for NCD: 

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

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move: 

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

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement: 

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

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

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India: 

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

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

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse: 

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

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

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

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

The report highlights the following four important points:

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

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

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

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

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

The authors further indicate:

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

Conclusion: 

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

-       Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

-       Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

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

CL through a different route:

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

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

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

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

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

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

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

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

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

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

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

Indicators

Year

India

US

UK

Brazil

China
Hospital Bed Density(Per 10000 population)

2011

12

31

39

24

30
Doctor Density(Per 10000 population)

2011

6

27

21

17

14

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

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

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

Year

Number of Medical Colleges

Total Admissions

2011-2012

314

29,263

No of dental Colleges

Total Admissions

2011-2012

289

2783

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

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

(Source: KPMG Report 2011) 

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

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

Healthcare Professionals

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

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

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

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

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

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

The details are as follows:

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

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

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

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

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

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical: 

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

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

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

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

An evolving global trend:

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

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

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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