Tag Archives: Judgment

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent research report reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States since mid 2000 have spent over US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones.

As per available reports, from the year 2000  to 2010, the US-FDA, on an average, approved just 24 new drugs per year. This number is a sharp decline from the same of 1990, when on an average 31 new drugs were approved per year.

These studies throw open some important questions to ponder:

  • What is then the real issue with pharma innovation? 
  • Is it declining quality or quantity (number)?
  • What impacts the patients more?

Quantity vs quality of innovation:

A recent paper explored whether declining numbers of New Molecular Entities (NMEs), approved in the United States (US) each year, is the best measure of pharmaceutical “innovation.”

Thus, studying in detail the NME approvals in the US during 1987 to 2011, the authors proposed the following three distinct subcategories of NMEs:

  • First-in-class
  • Advance-in-class
  • Addition-to-class

This classification was aimed at providing more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends.

The paper established that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by ‘Addition-to-class’, or “Me too,” drug approvals. However, the good news is that ‘First-in-class’ approvals remained fairly steady over the study period.

Thus I reckon, there should be much greater focus with higher resource deployments for  more of ‘First-in-class’ drugs research and development.

To achieve this objective with requisite wherewithal, there will be a need to drastically cut down massive R&D expenditures on “Me-too” types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs. Such drugs, carrying exorbitant price tags,  creating a financial burden to the payers, could perhaps help increasing the number of innovations, but certainly not the quality of innovations to meet important unmet needs of patients in a cost effective manner.

Some facts: 

In 2010, the healthcare journal Prescire rated 97 new drugs or new indications. Only 4 of these provided any therapeutic advantage over the available existing drugs. Interestingly, 19 others (1 in 5) were approved despite having more harms than benefits.

According to another analysis, “About 1 in 6 new products had more harms than benefits, while more than half of all new products provided no advantages over existing options.”

Further, a different article published in Nature Reviews indicated, “doctors were more likely to rate drugs more than a decade old as transformative.”

Decline in the quality of innovation:

In this context, Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania have reportedly established as follows:

“By the 1980s new drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.”

While even in earlier years, newer patented drugs on an average used to be 4.5 times more effective, as compared to placebo.

The winds of change?

As a result, under the new ‘Affordable Care Act’ of President Obama, “comparative effectiveness research” by an independent research institute could well conclude that older drugs or even cheaper generic equivalents are better than the high priced patented ones, which create fortunes for the innovator pharmaceutical companies at the cost of patients and payers.    

The above initiate in ‘Obamacare’, if and when fructifies, will indeed hit the ‘Me-too’ type of drug innovators, especially in the United States, very hard. Nevertheless, is a music to the ear for the private health insurance companies and the patients at large.

A ray of hope?

‘Comparative drug effectiveness analysis’, as stated above, could eventually lead to replacement of newer high priced ‘me-too’ patented drugs by older relatively low priced generic equivalents, at least, for reimbursements.

This will, no doubt, lead to huge profit erosion of the big pharmaceutical players. Hence, extensive lobbying by industry groups in top gear, against this ‘patient-centric’ proposal, is currently on, .

As the new federal healthcare law will find its roots in America, despite strong opposition  from the powerful and influential pharma lobby groups, a ray of hope is now  faintly seen in otherwise blatantly exploitative and rather cruel drug pricing environment.

Where hype is the key driver:

Despite enormous hype, being created and spearheaded by the Big pharma, on the ‘essentiality’ of most stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in a country with patent laws blatantly in favor of commercial considerations, to enjoy a monopolistic marketing climate with pricing freedom, breakthrough pharma innovations are now indeed rather difficult to come by, as we shall deliberate below.

Reasons for decline:

Many experts believe that the following reasons, among many others, have attributed to the decline in the quality of pharmaceutical R&D output:

  • Most important drug discoveries for mankind have already been made or in other words, the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D have already been plucked. Now not so easy and rather difficult drug targets are remaining.
  • In the last decade, most of pharma R&D efforts were reportedly concentrated mainly in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer, cardiovascular and infectious diseases.
  • There is a need now to focus more on poorly understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as, autoimmune diseases or complex diseases related  immune system of the body, to meet greater unmet needs of patients.
  • Clinical trial volunteers are now more difficult to recruit and treat.
  • More stringent regulatory requirements for clinical trials with studies using much larger number of patients, making the clinical drug development process very expensive.

Could it be worse for Big Pharma?

The evolving situation, though very early in the day now, has the potential to turn much worse for the big pharma and good for the patients, if some key changes take place.

Many industry analysts, across the world, feel that ‘liberal’ patent laws are responsible for acceptance of minor advances over the existing products as patentable with 20 years of market exclusivity.

Thereafter, another ‘liberal’ minded drug regulatory framework allows the pharma players to market such ‘not-so-innovative patented medicines’ aggressively, enabling them to amass astronomical profits in no time at the cost of patients’ interests and payors’ financial burden , as happened in the United States and many other countries recently.

To avoid such trivial innovations the law and policy makers in the industrialized countries may well ponder as follows:

1. Align the country’s ‘Patents Act’ with similar to what Indian law makers had formulated in 2005 to avoid minor and ‘evergreening’ types of patents under section 3(d) of the Act.

2. The clinical research data must establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than the existing ones.

Denial of patentability for ‘me-too’ innovations and their subsequent regulatory approvals would significantly reduce the drug treatment cost with virtually no adverse impacts on patients, across the world.

If such measures are taken by the developed countries of the world and also the emerging markets, the Big Pharma would be compelled to change their respective business models, making ailing patients of varying financial status, color and creed central to their respective strategic ideation processes.

Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that anything will change for the patients from what we are all experiencing today, at least in the near to medium term.

A possible pathway:

Highly conflicting interests of Big pharma and the patients, should get resolved sooner than later and that again for the interest of both. 

Thus, to find a meaningful and generally acceptable solution to this issue, there is a dire need for a much wider global debate. The deliberations, at the same time, should include possibilities of finding ways to avoid huge wasteful expenditures on pharmaceutical R&D for developing new products that offer no significant benefits to the patients over the existing ones. On the contrary, such products burden them with exorbitant incremental drug treatment costs, 

The motions of the debate could well be in the following lines:

1.  ‘Should United States amend its patent laws by categorically stating that a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” that does not have properties resulting in significant improvement in clinical efficacy, will not be patentable?

2. Shouldn’t the clinical research data must always establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than already available cheaper equivalents?

The positive outcome of this global debate, if fructifies, will indeed be considered as a paradigm shift in the new world order for all, hopefully.

Unfathomable reluctance: 

Despite all these developments, a recent report indicated that the heads of seventeen industry associations of the United States wrote a letter to President Obama complaining, among others, India’s patents regime. This includes the most powerful, yet equally controversial, pharmaceutical lobby group of America.

The letter alleged that the recent policy decisions in India undermine internationally recognized Intellectual Property (IP) standards, which are “jeopardizing domestic jobs” in America and are unacceptable to them.

Though the details of issues were not highlighted in the letter, One concern it specifically expressed that the defeat of Novartis on the Glivec case that challenged Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India has raised the bar on what can be considered a true innovation for the grant of patent in India.

Though this judgment of the apex court of India was widely acclaimed even globally, American Trade Association Lobby Groups seem to project exactly the opposite, reportedly, driven solely by profit motives of their members and shorn of patients’ interests

Interestingly, an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 also states as follows:

“A patent law that treats incremental innovation and significant innovation in the same way, encourages companies to prioritize less important research over more important research.”

A diametrically opposite viewpoint:

Another school of thought leaders opine, ‘me too’ innovations will continue to remain alive and well. This will happen, even if such new products are starved of oxygen by ‘the tightening purse strings of the eventual customers’. These innovations are sustained by the stronger imperative to avoid clinical failures and to play relatively safe in the space of expensive R&D investments.

They feel that pharma players will continue to focus on to leaner drug discovery and development models to have healthier late-stage product pipelines of such types.  In tandem, by cutting costs even more aggressively, as we witness today, they will find space to keep the level of risk optimal for delivering real innovation, when the time comes.

This type of business model, the experts feel is based on the belief that it is far better to acquire a product with very little innovation ensuring that it can hardly fail to be approved by the regulator. Thereafter, the concerned players may figure out ways of how payors will actually pay for it, rather than focusing primarily on acquiring a genuinely innovative ‘First-in-class’ product and then discover it has ‘feet of clay’.

For example, AstraZeneca reportedly invested a little over US$1 billion in two such products in one month: another LABA combination from Pearl Therapeutics and a prescription ‘Fish Oil’ capsule from Omthera Pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, a large number of experts do opine, especially in the light of the above letter of the American Trade Associations that the verdict of the Honorable Supreme Court of India on the Glivec case, though does not serve the business interests of pharma MNCs, definitely signals the triumph of justice over ruthless patient exploitations. It also vindicates that this particular rule of law, as enacted by the Indian Parliament, is indeed for the best interest of the patients of India at large.

This verdict could well be construed as a huge lesson to learn and implement by other like minded countries, across the world.

Having a glimpse at the pharmaceutical innovations, which are often laced by crafty hypes created by expensive PR Agencies of the pharma lobby groups, the global thought leaders do tend to believe, rather strongly, that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India would encourage more ‘First-in-class’ innovations, in the long run, benefiting all.

Such a provision, if implemented by many countries, could also help saving significant wasteful expenditures towards ‘Me-too’ type pharma R&D, favorably impacting billions of lives, across the world.

That said, the question keeps haunting – ‘Sans Hype, Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

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.

 

 

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. 

Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India

Posted on by
Reply
Delhi High Court turned down the request of Bayer Corporation in August 18, 2009 to link patent status of its kidney cancer drug Nexavar (sorefenib tosylate) with the marketing approval of the generic equivalent of the same patented molecule manufactured by Cipla, during the patent life of Nexavar in India.Bayer received an Indian patent for Nexavar in March 2008, which is one of the potential blockbuster drugs of Bayer Corporation and is expected to clock an annual global sales turnover of around U.S $1 billion soon.In this particular case, Bayer argued that an approval for its generic equivalent from Cipla would infringe on their patent.

The interim and the final judgment of the Delhi High Court:

Honorable Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in response to the petition filed by Bayer Corporation and refrained the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) from granting marketing approval of the generic version of sorefenib tosylate of Cipla, until the final order is passed by the Court.

In its final judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that Bayer should not have brought this case to the honorable court as the drug regulation is not linked to patent rights in India.

Further, the court could not, “conclude that unpatented drugs are spurious drugs” and said, “this court is constrained to observe that the present litigation was what may be categorized as speculative foray, and attempt to ‘tweak” public policies through court mandated regimes.”

Besides, the honorable Court has asked the Bayer Corporation to pay Rs 6.75 lakh to the Government and Cipla as legal costs.

Will this High Court ruling encourage more such incidence in India?

Some experts feel that the Delhi High Court ruling may encourage generic pharmaceutical companies to launch generic versions of patented drugs in India despite the risk of paying damages, if patent infringement is proved in a court of law.

Keeping all these in view, let us now discuss the relevance of Patent Linkage in India.

What really is a patent linkage?

The process of Patent Linkage establishes a desirable communication process between the Health Ministry and the Patent Offices to prevent marketing approval of generic drugs before expiration of patents granted in India.

It also ensures that one Government Department / Ministry does not impair the efforts of another Government Department / Ministry to provide effective intellectual property protection as required by Article 28 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

However, the generic companies argue that the role of the DCGI is restricted to regulating safety and efficacy of the drugs, whereas ascertaining patent status of products fall within the ambit of Indian Patent Offices. Thus these two cannot be linked.

The argument in favour of a robust Patent Linkage system:

1. WTO TRIPS Article 28.1a says that the member countries agree to ensure exclusive rights to patent holder for a specific time period. In case of India, like most other countries, this time period is for 20 years.

2. During this period the member countries agree to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale the patented product without the owner’s consent.

3. In India there is no known strong deterrent for patent infringement. In absence of which, the opportunity to make significant commercial gain through patent infringement, on the pretext of extending benefits to patients could indeed be, many a times, difficult to resist.

4. Media reports that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has raised huge demand in crores of rupees for overcharging the common man, flouting the drug pricing norms, by some of these large companies involved in patent infringement litigations, vindicates the point of their basic overall intention of significant commercial gain over extending pricing benefits to the common man.

Who is responsible to ensure the sanctity of the product patent system in India?

1. The prevailing situation warrants a strong regulatory system, which could prohibit marketing approval of generic equivalents of patented molecules during their patent period.

2. The question that is often raised in this context is who exactly be held responsible for implementation of such a system in our country? While addressing this question one should realize that it is the Government in its entirety and not just the Patent offices or any particular ministry or ministries of the Governments is bound by the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, it is justifiably the responsibility of all Government departments/ministries to ensure that TRIPS obligations of the Government on proper enforcement of patent are properly met.

3. The process of granting marketing approval for patented molecules, in general, rests on the Ministry of Health (MoH) of WTO member states. Thus for WTO member states to meet TRIPS obligations effective communication between the MoH and the Patent offices of the country is absolutely essential. Such a system will help prevent approval of generic versions of patented molecules before expiration of the product patents.

4. Establishing this communication process will ensure that one department/ministry of the Government (say DCGI) does not impair the efforts of another Government department/ministry (say IPOs) to provide effective intellectual property protection as articulated in Article 28.1 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

5. This system will ensure that Health Regulatory Authorities do not, even unintentionally, undermine the commitment of the Government to conform to the TRIPS Agreement.

Will India be the unique country if such a system of “Patent Linkage” is put in place?

The answer is obviously ‘no’. The system of Patent Linkage exists around the world.

Following are some examples:

Australia – Health Authorities do not provide marketing approval for a generic copy which would infringe an existing patent.

Brazil – As of 2006, no copies of products still under patent have been launched in the market place. However, the Brazilian Health Agency (ANVISA), grants registration to copy products, based only on the merits of the case from the regulatory point of view, whether or not a patent has been granted for the same.

Canada – Health Regulatory Authorities do not provide marketing approval for pharmaceutical products protected by patents listed in the equivalent of the US FDA Orange Book.

China – The State Food & Drugs Administration (SFDA) must be satisfied that no patent is being infringed before it will issue marketing approval. If there has been litigation over a patent, SFDA will wait until the appeals process has been exhausted before acting.

Jordan – Marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product is not permitted during the period of patent protection.

Mexico – Applicants seeking marketing approval for generic pharmaceutical products in Mexico must certify that their patent rights are not infringed. The Health Regulatory Authorities then check with the Patent Office, which must respond within ten days to confirm whether a patent is involved. While Health Authorities will accept an application of marketing approval during the patent period, grant of marketing approval will be delayed until the patent expires.

Singapore – Applicants seeking marketing approval for generic pharmaceutical products in Singapore must declare that the application does not infringe any patent.

U.A.E – The Health Regulatory Authorities do not provide marketing approval for pharmaceutical products that remain under patent protection in the country.

U.S.A – U.S. FDA maintains a listing of pharmaceutical products known as the Orange Book. The Electronic Orange Book is also available via the internet at: http://ww.fda.gov/cder/ob The U.S. FDA does not authorize the marketing approval for a generic copy of a pharmaceutical product protected by a patent listed in the Orange Book.

Europe – Instead of Patent Linkage, the period of data exclusivity is for 10/11 years.

The Patent Linkage System is in progress in countries like Bahrain, Chile, Dominican Republic – Central America FTA (DR-CAFTA), Morocco and Oman.

Conclusions:

I therefore submit the following recommendations to ensure proper enforcement of products patent in India:

 The status of the grant of patent should be reviewed, through appropriate drug regulatory mechanism, before granting marketing permission to generic formulations and if the concerned innovative product is already patented in India, marketing permission for the generic formulation should be withheld.

 Appropriate mechanism/system should soon be worked out in co-ordination with other Ministries to avoid cases of infringement of product patents in India.

 The procedure (Patent Linkage) of checking the patent status of a product before granting marketing approval already exists in the Form 44. This procedure needs to be effectively implemented soon to encourage innovation in India.

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.