Tag Archives: IPR

Indian Patent office (IPO) asks for details of ‘working of patents’ in India – does it herald the beginning of a new chapter in the IPR regime of the country or it could trigger another raging debate

Posted on by
Reply
A Public Notice dated 24/12/2009 issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in Form No.27 on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act (as amended) read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003 ( as amended). The notice also draws attention to penalty provisions in the Patent Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.The Last date for filing the information is March 31, 2010. Only history will tell us about the possible future impact of this notification.Why is this information needed by the IPO?

Indian Patent Law specifies a provision for submission of information in Form 27 regarding the details of ‘working of a patent’ granted in India, which is a statutory requirement.

The information sought by the IPO in Form 27 can be summarized as follows:

A. For not ‘working of patent’: the reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

1. The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
2. The details to be provided if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
3. A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

NB:

• A fine of up to (USD $25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.
• Providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

What would amount to ‘Local Working of Patent’ in India?

Obviously, the question will arise what then would constitute ‘working of patent’ in the country. It is generally believed that ‘commercial exploitation’ of patented products in India will mean local ‘working of patent’ in the country.

This is still a controversial issue as some experts claim that ‘local working of patent’ can be established only through local manufacturing and thus importation of such products will not be considered as ‘local working of patent’ in India.

However, other groups of experts opine, as a signatory of article 21 (1) of TRIPS, India is under clear obligation to accept importation of a locally patented product as ‘local working of patent’.

How affordable is affordable?

Besides, ‘local working of patent’ issue, section 84.1 of the patent Act 2005 under ‘Compulsory licenses’ says:

“At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the (grant) of a patent, any person interested may make an application to the controller for grant of compulsory license on patent on any of the following grounds, namely:

a. that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or
b. that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or
c. that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.”

The question, therefore, will arise, who will determine whether a patented product is available to the public at a reasonably affordable price or not? Moreover, what will be the measure, formula or yard to stick to decide reasonably affordable price? The next question could be – reasonably affordable price for whom … for the rich minority… or for around 300 million middle class population of the country… or for another 713 million lower middle class or poorer section of the society?

How ‘affordable’ then will be considered as ‘affordable’ in such cases?

Conclusion:

Whatever may be the case, it would be interesting to know, how the Indian patent Office (IPO) would deal with these details. In any case, such information will not remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act’ will help ferret all these details out in the open.

Thus, when the ‘moment of truth’ comes, one will be quite curious to note how the proponents of ‘compulsory licensing (CL)’ would try to push their envelope hard enough on this score to establish their view points… And on the other hand how would the innovator companies establish that the price is indeed a function of the value that the product would offer… and in that process would gear themselves up with relevant and credible, possibly ‘Health Technology Assessment (HTA)’ details to establish the price premium of patented products in India to meet the ‘unmet needs of the ailing patients.’

Striking a right balance in this matter by the IPO between rewarding fruits of expensive, risky and time consuming innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population of the country, on the other, will indeed be a daunting task.

By Tapan Ray

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

Regulatory Data Protection and Indian Interest

Posted on by
Reply

Of late, I read and hear raging debates, especially through media, on the relevance of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) or Data Exclusivity in India. This issue is being considered by many as a fight between the commercial interests of multinational and the domestic Indian companies. In this fight the provision for RDP is being highlighted as something, which is against our national interest.

In this scenario, I shall try to argue that in our country, on the contrary, a provision for a robust RDP mechanism, which will protect clinical trial data of ANY innovator both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, is in the best interest of India, at least, for the following four important reasons:

1. RDP to benefit even small to medium size domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies:

Small to medium size pharmaceutical companies in India, who do not have adequate wherewithal to get engaged in drug discovery research, will also be benefitted from RDP. They will be able to obtain data exclusivity for a specific period on the new clinical data that they will be generating for new fixed dose combinations (FDC), new medical uses and new formulations of medicines. This will help them create more resources to invest in R&D to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

2. RDP on traditional medicines to benefit Indian Pharmaceutical companies:

Rich reservoir of Indian traditional medicines, commonly categorized under Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha, are being used by a large majority of Indian populations over centuries. Such medicines are not protected by product patents, as such.

Further clinical development of these traditional medicines for greater efficacy and safety profile or newer usage, even if the ultimate product is not patentable, will help the common man immensely with affordable medicines.

The new clinical data generated by the researcher for such initiatives will be protected through RDP for a specific time period both against disclosure and unfair commercial use to make such efforts commercially viable and attractive.

RDP in this way can help the researcher to invest in the R&D of traditional plant based or similar medicines, which are not protected by any product patent. This in turn will help many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in less cost intensive R&D with a robust economic model, built around RDP or data exclusivity.

3. RDP to boost outsourcing of clinical trials to India:

As per CII, clinical trials market in India is currently growing at 30-35%. McKinsey estimated that EU and US based pharmaceutical companies will spend US$ 1.5 billion per year on clinical trials in India by 2010. Currently China with 5 year regulatory data protection in place is having significant edge over India in this area.

Many CROs have started making investments in India to create world class clinical trial facilities to encash this opportunity. Such investments, both domestic as well as in form of FDI, are expected to further increase, if an effective RDP mechanism is created within the country.

4. RDP to help Competition from China:

Despite some significant inherent weaknesses of China, as compared to India, in terms of a preferred global pharmaceutical business destination, China is fast outpacing India in R&D related activities. More number of global R&D based pharmaceutical companies has started investing quite significantly in China. One of the key reasons for such development is that China provides product patent, patent linkage and RDP, whereas India provides only product patent.

R&D based global pharmaceutical and biotech companies who want a robust IPR regime in the countries where they will invest more, therefore, prefer China to India in terms of FDI.

A robust RDP mechanism in India would help bridging this gap considerably.

Conclusion:

There is a widespread apprehension in some quarters in India that RDP will delay the entry of cheaper generic drugs in the country. This apprehension seems to be unfounded.

Unlike product patent, RDP will not provide any market exclusivity even within the specified period of RDP. Any generic manufacturer can generate its own regulatory data and obtain marketing approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to market a non patent related product in the country, just as in any developed market of the world. Thus RDP will not delay any generic entry into the market.

My final argument, if the provision for RDP or Data Exclusivity will delay the entry of cheaper generic medicines into India, why the same is not happening in the developed markets of the world like, USA, EU, Japan and even in China, despite having a robust provision for RDP or Data Exclusivity firmly in place in each of these countries?

Thus in my view, the provision for RDP in India is undoubtedly in the best interest of our country.

By Tapan Ray

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

IPR, Biodiversity and India

Posted on by
Reply

The issue of conservation of the biological resources of a country, whether these are local crops or useful plant varieties, available in remote areas of the country, has become a subject of debate in the paradigm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The use of local knowledge and the traditional use of these biological resources are interwoven in the cultural milieu of a region.

Two major international agreements:

Following two major international agreements deal with this issue:

1. The Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)

2. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

It is worth mentioning that countries like, India, Mexico, Philippines, Peru etc, are coming up with the local country-specific legislation to effectively deal with this issue.

Experts’ Views:

Many experts suggest that IPR may be judiciously used to effectively protect the biological resources. Such use of IPR may range from preventing misappropriation to significant increase in utilization of various resources and investments towards their conservation.

However, others express quite a different view, voicing that the IPR system may work against conservation of biological resources by ‘undermining the knowledge system, culture and social structure.’

Recently there was a suggestion that each country should take some well articulated legal steps to conserve its precious biological resources. It must ensure that only those steps, which are compatible with the concept of ownership and the value system of the local population, are to be taken into account during IPR system of negotiation, related to such biological resources. These experts argue that an IPR system must support appropriate conservation through effective management of biodiversity.

There is yet another totally different school of thought leaders, who nurture a very strong view, which is as follows:

“The history of IPRs shows that the monopolistic hold of governments, corporations and some individuals over biological resources and related knowledge is continuously increasing. A substantial amount of this monopolisation is built upon, and through the appropriation of, the resources conserved and knowledge generated by indigenous and local communities.”

Some IPR related ‘scandals’ in this area:

Activities like the following, which are treated as IPR related scandals keep sending shock waves to many:

1. A Patent was granted vide the US Patent No. 5,401,504, to the healing properties of the ancient Indian herbal remedies turmeric ,which is a traditional knowledge to the Indians, since many centuries.

2. A Patent was granted vide the US Patent No. 5,663,484 to varieties of Basmati rice grown traditionally in both North India and Pakistan.

3. A Patent was granted vide the US Patent No. 5,397,696 to human cell line (human genetic material) of a Hagahai tribesman from Papua New Guinea.

These are just illustrative examples and not exhaustive.

Steps taken by some developing countries:

Alarmed by all these developments, some of the developing countries of the world are seriously contemplating the following:

1. Preventing indigenous traditional knowledge from being “pirated” with IPR claims driven solely by commercial interests.

2. Restricting access to biological resources with appropriate regulatory measures.

Measures taken by India:

A. Legal measures have now been taken by India to address this issue:

1. New plant varieties can now be protected in India under the New Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Protection Actin 2001 and cannot be protected through patents.

2. Protection of ‘Geographical Indications (GI)’, which identify goods as originating in the territory of a member or a region or a locality in that territory, where a given quality reputation or other characteristics of the goods is attributable to their geographical origin.

4. For registration of GI, all applicants will require applying in writing to the Registrar for the registration of such indications.

B. Following GIs cannot be registered in India :

• Use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion or contrary to any law.

• Comprising or containing scandalous or obscene matter or any matter likely to hurt religion susceptibility of any class or section of citizens of India.

• Which would otherwise be disentitled to protection in a court.

• Which are determined to be in generic names and are not or ceased to be protected in their country of origin or which have fallen into disuse in that country.

• Which, although literally true as to the territory, region or locality in which the goods originate, but falsely represent to the persons that the goods originate in another territory, region or locality.

C. Punishment for falsifying a Geographical Indication:

A sentence of imprisonment for a term between six months to three years and a fine between fifty thousand rupees and two lakh rupees is provided in the Act. The court may reduce the punishment under special circumstances.

D. Term of GI protection:

The registration of a GI shall be for a period of ten years but may be renewed from time to time for an unlimited period by payment of the renewal fees.

Conclusion:

Detailed studies regarding the involvement of community in conservation and protection of biodiversity along with their drivers and barriers will be of immense use. One-dimensional view of innovation, based only on profit motive, in the space of biodiversity and food security, especially for the developing countries, like India, calls for more enlightened debate within the civil society.

By Tapan Ray

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

Innovation, IPR and Altruism in Public Health

Posted on by
Reply
The ongoing debate on innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and public health is gaining momentum.Even in India, the experts and various stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry got involved in an interactive discussion with the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Dr. Francis Gurry on November 12, 2009 at New Delhi, on this subject among many other issues.During the discussion it appeared that there is a need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR help rather than hinder public health. At the same time there is an urgent need to consider by all the stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry how the diseases of the developing countries may be addressed, the best possible way. Some initiatives have already been taken in this respect with the pioneering ‘patent pool’ initiative of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of the Government of India.Innovation, IPR, Access to medicines and the neglected people of India:

In India, the key issue is lack of access to modern medicines by over 650 million people of its population. Have we, by now, been able to effectively address the issue of access to existing affordable generic medicines to these people, which are mainly due to lack of adequate healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery system and healthcare financing models? Thus IPR does not seem to be a key reason for such poor access to medicines in India; at least for now. Neither, is the reason due to inadequate availability of affordable essential medicines for the neglected tropical diseases. The reason, as is widely believed, is inadequate focus on the neglected people to address their public health issues.

How can medicines be made more affordable without addressing the basic issue of general poverty?

It is a known fact that the price of medicines is one of the key determinants to improve access to medicines. However, the moot question is how does one make a medicine more affordable without addressing the basic issue of general poverty of people? Without appropriately addressing the issue of poverty in India, affordability of medicines will always remain as a vexing problem and a public health issue.

The positive effect of the debate on innovation, IPR and public health:

One positive effect of this global debate is that many global pharmaceutical companies like Novartis, GSK, and Astra Zeneca etc. have initiated their R&D activities for the neglected tropical diseases of the world.

Many charitable organizations like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton Foundation etc. are allocating huge amount of funds for this purpose. The Government of India is also gradually increasing its resource allocation to address the issue of public health, which is still less than adequate though.

These developments are definitely bringing in a change, slow and gradual – a change for the better. However, all these are still grossly inadequate and insufficient to effectively address the public health issues of India for the suffering majority.

Still much is needed to be done:

Still much is needed to be done for the developing countries like, India in the space of public health, though since last decades significant progress has been made in this area through various initiatives as mentioned above. Additional efforts are warranted for the sustainability of these initiatives, which have not yet gained the status of robust and sustainable work models. However, the government in power should shoulder the key responsibility to garner all resources, develop and implement the new healthcare financing models through appropriate healthcare reform measures, to achieve its long cherished goal of providing affordable public healthcare to all.

Conclusion:

Innovation, as is widely acknowledged, is the wheel of progress of any nation. This wheel should move on, on and on with the fuel of IPR, which is an economic necessity of the innovator to make the innovation sustainable.

Altruism, especially in the area of public health, may be desirable by many. Unfortunately, that is not how the economic model of innovation and IPR works globally. Accepting this global reality, the civil society should deliberate on how innovation and IPR can best be used, in a sustainable manner, for public health, more so, for the marginalized population of a country.

By Tapan Ray

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

IPR, Climate Change and addressing the issue of transfer of Carbon abatement technology in the developing world.

Posted on by
Reply
To address all pervasive global challenge of climate change, access to efficient and cost effective carbon abatement technology to reduce the greenhouse effect has become a very important issue, especially for an emerging economy like, India. This issue perhaps will gain even more importance after the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
Various schools of thoughts:
Many experts argue that patents on various efficient carbon abatement technology developed by the western countries are making it increasingly difficult for the emerging economies of the world to address this issue, in a cost effective manner.

Another group of experts argue with equal zest that all patented technologies do not cost very high for efficient carbon abatement. Out of various types of such patented technologies, which are available globally to reduce the greenhouse effect, some may cost high, but many of them are also available at quite a low cost.

The third group says that many other efficient technologies are available to reduce carbon emission, which are not covered by any Intellectual Property Right (IPR), at all. Developing or emerging economies should consider these technologies to address this global issue, effectively.

An encouraging trend:

An encouraging trend is now emerging where the developing countries are also applying for patent on such technology with an increasing number. A recent report by the COPENHAGEN ECONOMICS highlights that during last four years, while the number of global patent on the carbon abatement technology increased by 120 per cent over the corresponding period of previous four years, the number of such patents from the developing or emerging economies increased by around 550 per cent. This is indeed a very interesting trend.

Difference in the number of patented technologies within the developing countries:

The same report also indicates that there is a striking difference in the number of patent protected carbon abatement technologies even within the developing and emerging economies. As per this report, around 99 percent of all patent protected technologies are from a small group of emerging economies, whereas just a meagre 0.6 percent of these patented technologies are from a large number of lower-income developing economies. This anomaly is believed to be mainly due to commercial reasons, as the owners of these patents are from the developed economies of the world.

A comparison between India and China:

The report highlights that 40 percent of the carbon abatement technology patents in China are locally owned against around just 14 percent in India.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, such studies perhaps will go in favour of the argument that patent protected carbon abatement technologies should not be considered as a barrier to technology transfer for reducing carbon emission by the low-income developing countries of the world. Also the IPR by itself perhaps will not be an impediment in the transfer of carbon abatement technology from the developed economies.

Many believe that rather than technological reasons, economic reasons are coming in the way in reducing carbon emission in the low income developing countries. The factors like, lack of adequate expertise to develop carbon abatement technologies locally, small market size to warrant a local manufacturing facility, low purchasing power etc. all put together play a significant role in appropriately addressing the greenhouse effect by these countries.

The local government of the respective developing countries should take all these factors into consideration and come out with appropriate and robust policy measures, which also should include lucrative fiscal incentives for using cheaper and efficient carbon abatement technology, to contain the greenhouse effect, efficiently and effectively.

By Tapan Ray

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

Will the ‘Bayer–Cipla case’ now put the ‘Bolar Provision’ under judicial scrutiny?

Posted on by
Reply
To enable the domestic pharmaceutical industry gaining a critical mass and cater to the pressing healthcare needs of the nation, in 1970 product patent act was abolished by the government of India. This immensely helped the domestic companies to launch the generic version of innovative medicines at a very low price, making those drugs quite affordable to a large section of the population.
Cost and process efficiencies helped the Indian pharma companies to reach out:

Quickly acquired cost and process efficiencies of the domestic generic pharma companies soon made India a power to reckon within the global generic pharmaceutical industry. Besides fueling the domestic demand of the essential medicines in general and these drugs in particular, the domestic pharma players soon commenced exports of these cheaper but high quality medicines to non-regulated and the least developed countries of the world to cater to their affordable healthcare needs.

India played a key role in combating HIV-AIDS in Africa:

In that process, India also played a critical role to ensure that HIV-AIDS drugs are available to the poor and down trodden in Africa in general and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, at an affordable price.

A paradigm shift:

On January 1, 2005, India stepped in to a new paradigm with re-enactment of the product patent act in the country, which is widely believed to be TRIPS compliant. This consequently ushered in a transition within the Indian pharmaceutical industry from the mindset of an ‘imitator’ to the prestigious status of an ‘innovator’, which ultimately drives the wheel of progress of a nation.

The voice of concern:

At the same time and for the same paradigm shift many expressed their grave concerns about the role that the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry will play in the new paradigm to continue to make cheaper but quality modern medicines available not only to a large section of the Indian society, but also to the needy patients of non-regulated and least developed countries of the world.

TRIPS safeguard provisions:

Although minimum standards of patent protection that patent holders should get have been articulated in TRIPS, it also very clearly specifies three very important public health safeguard provisions simultaneously, which will allow any participating country to utilize these during such types of needs.

These three TRIPS public health safeguard provisions are as follows:

A. Compulsory Licensing:

- There is nothing in TRIPS, which can limit the authority of the government, in any way, to grant compulsory licensing of a patented product for public health safeguard.

B. Parallel importing:

- TRIPS clearly indicates that under WTO dispute settlement body parallel imports cannot be challenged, if there is no discrimination on the patent holders’ nationality.

AND

C. Bolar Provisions

The Bolar Provision:

To enable the generic players launching new molecules at a much cheaper price, the Patent Act 2005 provides for exceptions to the patentee’s exclusive rights under Article 30 of TRIPS, as ‘Bolar Provisions’ in its section 107A(a):

“any act of making, constructing, using, selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product.”

This section provides an exemption from patent infringement to the generic manufacturers from producing and importing patented drugs for research and development, related to submission of information for regulatory approvals of generic versions of patented products before the original patents expire. The legislative intent of this section is to ensure that the generic versions of patented products are ready with necessary regulatory approval for market launch, immediately after the innovator products go off patent, rather than going through a long rigorous process of getting the regulatory approval only after expiration of the patent term.

Is the Section 107A now under judicial scrutiny?

This section may be unfairly used by some generic manufacturers, soon after the launch of products patented in India, for unfair commercial reasons. The final judgement on Bayer–Cipla case on Nexavar may throw some light on this important provision. It is quite possible that because of this reason Delhi High court has ordered Cipla to seek the High Court’s permission before market launch of the generic version of Bayer’s patented product.

Conclusion:

Although there is nothing wrong in using a patented molecule for getting regulatory approval with a genuine intent to launch the generic version after the original product goes off patent, it now appears that in absence of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, this section may most likely to be abused more by some generic players with mala fide commercial interest.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

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

Government accepts the Mashelkar committee Report:

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

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

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

R&D based Indian Pharmaceutical industry gains considerably:

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

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

Mashelkar committee categorically observes the following:

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

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

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

Wait a minute – wait a minute:

The report also suggests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Is the revised Mashelkar Committee Report a ‘please all’ report, without taking any chance to ‘rock the boat’?

Posted on by
Reply
After repeated request and persuasion by the Government of India (GoI) in general and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) in particular ‘The Mashelkar Committee’re-submitted its reports to the GoI under the following terms of references:
Terms of Reference of the ‘The Technical Expert Group (TEG)’ Group:Following were the terms of references of the TEG:

1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.

2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.

Today I shall restrict my comments only on the point 1 of the terms of reference. Keeping this mind, let me try to analyze what various stakeholders had expected from the report. Against those expectations, what the report has actually articulated. And how have all these comments/ recommendations been able to keep almost all the stakeholders, with widely varying expectations, reasonably happy.

Why is the revised report a ‘please all’ report?

The key stakeholders who were interested in the revised report are as follows:

A. Research-based pharmaceutical companies who expressed concerns on the patentability of ‘incremental innovation’.

B. The Government of India (GoI) who may not be keen to revisit section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, at least for now.

C. All voices supporting price regulations for patented products, in some form, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) being one of them.

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical companies who want safeguards within Indian Patents Act 2005 against ‘ever greening’ of patents to ensure that there is no delay in launching generics after patent expiry.

Well crafted and well reasoned revised report from the TEG has been able to please all these stakeholders, to a great extent, which I shall analyze hereunder:

A. Expectations of the Research-based pharmaceutical companies from the report:

The research-based pharmaceutical companies seem to have expected that the report will recommend in specific terms that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 is not TRIPS compliant, as it restricts patentability of ‘incremental innovation’.

What the report actually says:

- “The Technical Expert Group (TEG) concludes that it would not be TRIPS compliant (Article 27 of TRIPS) to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”.

- “The process of innovation is continuous and progressive leading to an ever extending chain of knowledge. Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation.”

“The TEG carefully examined the flexibilities allowed under the TRIPS Agreement to the member states (especially Articles 7 & 8 ) and also as a consequence of the Doha Declaration. The detailed analysis and reassessing provided in the report has led TEG to conclude that it is debatable as to whether national interest or the flexibility allowed under the agreement to member states would be accommodated by such ‘statutory exclusion’ of an entire class of (incremental)inventions.”

Very cleverly dodging the section 3(d) issue, the report supported the argument of the research-based pharmaceutical companies that ‘incremental innovation’ in pharmaceuticals cannot summarily be kept out of the criteria of patentability.

B. Government of India (GoI):

The GoI wanted to keep section 3(d) unchanged, till some sort of stakeholders’ consensus is arrived at in favor of its amendment, if at all.

What the report actually says:

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

The TEG with this comment keeps the GoI satisfied, as the lawmakers are of the view that section 3(d) is not against incremental innovation. They believe, section 3(d) helps to avoid ‘frivolous’ innovation and ‘evergreening’ of patents by ensuring that all patentable ‘incremental innovations’ have ‘properties leading to incremental efficacy’. The revised TEG report, some people argue, vindicates this important point.

C. All voices supporting some form of price regulations of patented products, which include the DoP.

Both the DoP and other stakeholders want to keep the price of patented products under GoI control.

What the report actually says:

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

Thus the report satisfies the proponent of ‘affordable prices’ for patented products

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical industry:

A large majority of the domestic generic pharmaceutical companies is of the opinion that most ‘incremental innovations’, are usually attempts to ‘evergreen’ patents for sustained commercially monopoly over the products for a much longer period of time than what it should have been otherwise. Hence patentability for ‘incremental innovation’ is to be restricted by law.

What the report says:

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

Many will believe, with the above recommendations in their revised report, the TEG also meets the expectations of the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry, on this contentious issue.

Conclusion:

The revised report of ‘The Mashelkar committee’ has definitely addressed its terms of references, pretty well. However, being ‘advisory’ in nature, the report was expected to be more specific, unambiguous and directional. Unfortunately, the comments/recommendations are neither specific without any ambiguity nor directional in nature; unless, between the lines the ‘please all’ report suggests its agreement with all stakeholders in unison, with perfect balance and elan, without making even a slightest attempt to ‘rock the boat’ in any manner, whatsoever.

By Tapan Ray

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