Tag Archives: Lobby

With ‘Cutting Corners’ Going North, Pharma Reputation Dives South

Posted on by
Reply

Just a few months ago, on October 24, 2017, ‘New Jersey Law Journal’ came out with an eye-catching headline – “Sanofi Set to Pay $ 61M Settlement in Antitrust Suit Over Vaccine Bundling.” The suit says: “Sanofi-Pasteur allegedly suppressed competition for its pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product, unless they agreed to buy Sanofi’s pediatric vaccines exclusively. Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug manufacturer Sanofi.”

Nevertheless, a statement from the company said: “Despite Sanofi’s strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. Sanofi is finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal of the action and a release by settlement class members of all released claims.”

When such incidences – of various scales and dimensions, continue being reported by both the global and local media, over a long period of time, one can fathom the potential of their cumulative impact on public and other stakeholders. Severely dented image and reputation of pharma, in general, before the eyes of so many, across the world, is a testimony to this phenomenon. Considering these as ‘cutting corners’ syndromes, I shall discuss in this article, how fast is pharma reputation diving South, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ keep going North.

‘Cutting Corners’:

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘cutting corners’ as: ‘Doing something perfunctorily so as to save time or money’. Putting it in the context, I reckon, legally or ethically questionable actions with a deliberate intent of making quick profits, if not profiteering, can be termed as ‘cutting corners’ or business malpractices.

‘Cutting Corners’ going North:

This is no way a recent phenomenon. Gradually increasing number of new reports on pharma’s alleged malpractices are not uncommon, either. On the contrary, these keep coming rather too frequently – baffling many industry watchers and its well-wishers, for different reasons.

The details of 20 largest settlements in this area reached between the United States Department of Justice and various pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, as available from Wikipedia, provide a glimpse to its magnitude and dimension. The settlement amount reportedly includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo’s US$ 3 billion settlement is apparently one of the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on the record, and Pfizer’s US$ 2.3 billion settlement includes a record-breaking US$ 1.3 billion criminal fine. A federal court also recognized all off-label promotion as a violation of the False Claims Act, leading to a US$ 430 million settlement during that period, as this report highlights.

In one of my articles, titled ‘Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?’, published in this blog on May 19, 2014, I quoted a few more examples from 2013 and 2014, as well. A few of these are as follows:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix. 

Pharma reputation dives South:

That pharma reputation is diving south, is well captured in the ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings’ by Gallup, dated August 2-7, 2017. According to this public rating, the top 5 and bottom 5 industries came up as follows:

Top 5:

Industry Total Positive % Neutral % Total Negative % *Net positive or negative %
Computer

75

15

8

+67
Restaurant

72

21

7

+65
Farming and agriculture

70

17

12

+58
Grocery

60

23

17

+43
Internet

59

21

18

+41

The bottom 5, including the federal government:

Industry Total Positive % Neutral % Total Negative % *Net positive or negative %
Airline

41

20

35

+6
Oil and gas

38

21

40

-2
Healthcare

38

18

45

-7
Pharmaceutical

33

16

50

-17
Federal Govt.

29

19

52

-23

*Net Positive is % Positive minus % negative (in percentage points)

Image rejuvenation campaign not yielding results:

Arguably, the richest and the most powerful pharma industry lobby group in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, is incurring a mind-boggling sum of expenditure to mend the severely dented collective reputation and image of its members.

Vindicating this point, a January 18, 2017 media report articulated that a major pharma industry lobby group – PhRMA, is gearing up for a new image building campaign by spending in the “tens of millions” each year to drum up support for the reputationally challenged pharma industry. Such initiatives by PhRMA, as I understand, are not totally new, but rather ongoing. Be that as it may, as the Gallup survey confirms, pharma reputation keeps diving South, unabated.

Mending pharma’s reputation surfaces as one of the top concerns of the pharma industry. It, therefore, demands commensurate priority in working out a meaningful strategic plan, and its effective implementation on the ground, collectively. More so, when the POTUS – Donald Trump, has also emerged as a vocal pharma critic. He has already proclaimed that drug companies “are getting away with murder,” – as the above media report highlights.

Where is this campaign going off the mark?

On this subject, an article of September 5, 2017, published by Ars Technica – a technology news publication aptly epitomized, what is happening today with these campaigns, against what should have happened, instead. The column carries a headline ‘Big Pharma hopes research spending – not reasonable pricing – will improve image’.

The columnist wrote: “To scrub down their filthy reputations, drug makers could try lowering prices, a public mea culpa, or pledging to make pricing and marketing more responsible and transparent. But they seem to have taken a different strategy.” On this score, a relevant example, out of several others, was of Biogen introducing a drug in 2016, for a rare spine disorder and priced it at an eye-popping US$ 750,000 for the first years’ worth of treatment.

In pharma image revamp campaign, the focus on R&D spending or drug innovation, including blatant self-serving demands, such as strictest product patent and data exclusivity provisions, is rather overwhelming. It is understandable that all this fits in well with various pharma lobby group’s mission and mandate, but is unlikely to deliver what consumers would consider good behavior on the part of drug companies.

Is Indian pharma out of this loop?

The answer to this question is an emphatic – ‘No’. Alleged ‘dubious product quality’ related ongoing saga, is known today by all concerned. This had often culminated into US-FDA import bans of many drugs, manufactured by several Indian drug manufacturers – starting from the very top. Nonetheless, that’s not ‘the all’ or ‘end all’ in the ballgame of ‘cutting corners’ in India, as I explained above.

On September 26, 2017, a media report flashed: ‘The Income Tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and the evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.’

Close on the heels of ‘compromised drug quality standard’, such malpractices come as a double whammy for patients. But, the saga continues. In my article, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017, I mentioned about the October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. The notice cited several instances of alleged drug price fixing in the United States. Interestingly, this lawsuit includes name of several large Indian companies, such as Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. The expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Further, as I wrote before, the Maharashtra government’s recent announcement on enactment of a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also over the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Today’s patients are more informed:

In today’s world, wider access to the Internet for a large number of global population has a profound implication in every sphere of life. News, discussions, opinions, comments and a plethora of other information on various industries, including pharma, are available from different credible websites, just as anything else.

Additionally, the social media, collectively, have made exchanges and interpretations of such information within various groups and communities, as fast as these could be. Just as many other different things, wrongdoings or malpractices, if any, of various industries, also get quickly captured and shared by the Netizen with ease and élan. These include incidences of ‘cutting corners’ by constituents of the pharma industry too.

Conclusion:

The Public Relationship campaigns of pharma lobby groups, with a hope to bridging the industry’s ‘trust deficit’, have been reported from the United States and other countries. However, any such campaign for the pharma industry in India hasn’t arrested my attention, as yet.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubt or debate that the pharma industry, in general, has saved and is still instrumental in saving more lives, in every nook and corner of the world. Ironically, the same industry, for its own deeds prompted mostly by the self-serving needs, has been suffering a massive collateral damage.

The industry’s long unblemished image and reputation have been severely tarnished,   requiring rejuvenation with an inclusive approach. This may call for a mindset, at least, nearer to the same of George W. Merck – the legendary President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc. He articulated a vision – “Medicine Is For The Patient, Not For The Profits”, and practiced it religiously. In today’s context, this may sound rather utopian in letters, but surely not in its spirit… be that as it may….

Pharma lobby groups hope to reverse the current trend by focusing only on R&D spending, drug innovation and strictest patent protection and data exclusivity ecosystem is apparently a non-starter. That ongoing multi-million-dollar pharma image revamp campaigns haven’t yet captured any tangible positive outcomes – not even in the United States, is possibly a testimony to this fact.

The status quo is expected to continue. More so, when ‘reasonable pricing’ of drugs is one of the top most demands of patients, patient groups and even many governments – and that’s exactly where the buck stops in pharma business.

In my view, pharma reputation restoration process isn’t merely a one-sided communication issue, as it appears today. A strategic blue print of this critical industry need, deserves to be drawn on a much broader canvass with a patient-serving mindset, instead of just a self-serving one. Otherwise, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ going North, pharma reputation will keep diving South… till it finds its very bottom.

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.

 

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

By a letter dated October 21, 2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, the domestic pharma major Cipla has sought for the revocation of five patents of Novartis AG’s respiratory drug Indacaterol (Onbrez) in India, under Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Launch of a generic equivalent:

Cipla also announced its decision to launch shortly a generic equivalent of Indacaterol with the brand name Unibrez Rotacaps to satisfy the unfulfilled requirement of the new drug in India.

The Maximum Retail Price for a strip of 10 capsules of Unibrez Rotacaps 150 mcg would cost Rs.130.00 to patients against the equivalent strength of Onbrez of Novartis costing Rs.677.00, which is 420 percent more expensive than the price at which Cipla would sell this drug.

What do the Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act say?

- Section 66 of the Indian Patents Act:

“66. Revocation of patent in public interest: Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State of generally prejudicial to the public, if any, after giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard, make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette and thereupon the patent shall be deemed to be revoked.”

- Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act:

“92. Special provision for compulsory licenses: (1) If the Central Government is satisfied, in respect of any patent in force in circumstances of national emergency or in circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non- commercial use, that it is necessary that compulsory licenses should be granted at any time after the sealing thereof to work the invention, it may make a declaration to that effect, by notification in the Official Gazette, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say –

(i) The Controller shall on application made at any time after the notification by any person interested, grant to the applicant a license under the patent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(ii) In settling the terms and conditions of a license granted under this section, the Controller shall endeavor to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights.

(2) The provisions of sections 83, 87, 88, 89 and 90 shall apply in relation to the grant of licenses under this section as they apply in relation to the grant of licenses under section 84.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where the Controller is satisfied on consideration of the application referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (1) that it is necessary in –

(i) A circumstance of national emergency; or

(ii) A circumstance of extreme urgency; or

(iii) A case of public non- commercial use, which may arise or is required, as the case may be, including public health crises, relating to Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, Human Immuno Deficiency Virus, tuberculosis, malaria or other epidemics, he shall not apply any procedure specified in section 87 in relation to that application for grant of license under this section:

Provided that the Controller shall, as soon as may be practicable, inform the patentee of the patent relating to the application for such non-application of section 87.”

Two key reasons:

Anchored on the above two sections of the Indian Patents Act, the two key reasons cited by Cipla for revocation of five patents granted to Indacaterol of Novartis AG are, very briefly, as follows:

Lack of inventive steps and ‘evergreening’ of patents:

The exclusivity given to five patents of Indacaterol is contrary to law due to lack of inventive step, being obvious inventions. Novartis allegedly has indulged in ‘evergreening’ with a number of patents to extend monopoly of the drug much beyond the term of the first patent. Indian law expressly bars ‘evergreening’ as it impedes drug access to a large majority of the patients.

Lack of working of the patents:

Cipla also claimed lack of “working” of those patents in the country, as a mere 0.03 percent of the drug requirement is currently being fulfilled in India. This leaves the percentage of inadequacy in the requirement of the drug per year at a staggering number of around 99.97 percent.

With supporting details, Cipla has stated in its letter that Indacaterol under the brand name Onbrez is imported by Novartis through its licensee Lupin Pharma only. It further pointed out that the Indian law requires all patents to be “worked” within the territory of India.

While adequate quantity of imports may qualify as working, the present case is one in which the patents in question have not been worked through imports of adequate quantity of the drug. Thus reasonable requirements of the public have not been fulfilled, at all.

Abysmally low drug access to Indian patients:

According to Cipla, when there has been a necessity for the availability of Indacaterol to a much larger number of patients afflicted by COPD, that has assumed magnitude of an epidemic, just a miniscule of 0.03 percent of the total drug requirement is currently being met in the country. In 2013, the import of Indacaterol, as reportedly declared in Form 27 by Novartis to the Patent office, was just 53,844 units, which could meet this drug requirement at best of only 4,500 out of 15 million patients, annually.

Despite accepted drug benefits, the doctors are unable to adequately prescribe Indacaterol in India, due to low quantity of the drug import for the public.

Thus, while announcing the launch of cheaper generic equivalents of the drug, Cipla emphasized that its Unibrez Rotacaps would fulfill the requirements of the public, meet public health interest and at the same time increase access to this medicine, with an affordable alternative, for a large number of patients.

Increasing incidence of COPD in India:

In its application to the DIPP, Cipla underscored that Indacaterol is one of the preferred medications to treat widely prevalent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that has reached the magnitude of an epidemic in India with about 15 million Indians afflicted with the ailment.

COPD is now among the top ten causes of disease burden in India. According to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the overall prevalence rates of COPD in India are 5.0 and 3.2 percent respectively in men and women of and over 35 years of age. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that COPD is the cause of death of more people than HIV-AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis all put together in the South East Asian Region.

Cipla quoted an Indian Study on “Epidemiology of Asthma, Respiratory Symptoms and Chronic Bronchitis in Adults (INSEARCH)”, which estimated that about 7 percent of deaths annually are a result of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in India.

Importance of Indacaterol in COPD treatment:

Cipla reiterated that Indacaterol is the preferred drug over other beta adrenoceptor agonists, as it has to be consumed only once a day. Moreover, it has a higher potency and prolonged effect as compared to other beta adrenoceptor agonists.

Strong arguments make the case interesting:

Though appropriate legal authorities would take a final call on the subject, prima facie, Cipla seems to have a strong case resting on the pillars of Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Since, Cipla has already gone ahead and announced the launch of cheaper generic equivalent of Indacaterol in India, it gives a sense about the company’s confidence in its argument against five valid patents of Novartis on this drug.

On the other hand, one may also justifiably say that Cipla should have waited for the final verdict of the court of law on the validity of five Indacaterol patents in India, before deciding to actually launch a generic version of the patented drug.

It is worth noting that in 2013, Novartis lost a legal battle related to patent grant for its anti-leukemia drug Glivec in the Supreme Court of India. The case lasted over seven years in various courts of law. Interestingly, Cipla had followed similar course of action in the Glivec case too, and had won the case decisively.

‘Form 27’ and the Indian Patent office (IPO):

At this stage it is worth noting, a ‘Public Notice’ dated December 24, 2009 was 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 read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003.

The notice also drew attention to penalty provisions in the Patents Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.

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

A. 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:

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

The ‘Public Notice’ also indicated that:

• A fine of up to (US$ 25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.

• And providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

The important point to ponder now is, if Cipla’s allegation is correct, what has been the IPO doing with the ‘Form 27’ information to uphold the spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005, thus far?

Conclusion:

For various reasons, it would now be interesting to follow, how does the IPO deal with this case right from here. In any case, information provided through ‘Form 27’ cannot remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act (RTI)’ will help ferret more such details out in the open.

As the ‘Moment of Truth’ unfolds in this case, one would be quite curious to fathom how the strong voices against ‘non-working of patents’ and ‘evergreening’ drive home their arguments before the court of justice.

On the other hand, the global innovator companies, their highly paid lobby groups and the USTR are expected to exert tremendous pressure on the Indian Government to protect the global pharma business interests in India, come what may. All these would indeed create a potboiler, as expected by many.

In this complex scenario, striking a right balance between rewarding genuine innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population in the country, on the other, would not be an enviable task for the Indian Government.

As the juggernaut of conflicting interest moves on, many would keenly await for a glimpse of ‘the moment of truth’ based on the judicial interpretation of ‘evergreening’ and ‘working of patents’, for this case in particular.

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.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Special 301 Report and OCR – A brief Background:

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

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

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

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

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

The Deadlines for written submissions were as follows:

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

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

India’s earlier response to 2014 Special 301 Report:

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

The issue was raised during PM’s US visit:

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

The Indo-US joint statement addresses remedial measures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fresh hurdle in the normalization process:

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

What does US want?

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

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

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

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

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

Global healthcare NGOs strongly reacted:

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

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

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

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

Under US bullying, is India developing cold feet?

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

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

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

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

A Superficial and baseless interpretation:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

New ‘Modi Government’: Would Restoring Cordial Relationship with America Be As Vital As Calling Its Bluff On IP?

Posted on by
Reply

Newspaper reports are now abuzz with various industry groups’ hustle to lobby before the ‘Modi Government’ on their expectations from the new regime. This includes the pharmaceutical industry too. The reports mention that the industry groups, including some individual companies, have started getting their presentations ready for the ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office as soon as a new government takes charge on May 26, 2014.

Conflicting interests on IP:

While the domestic pharma industry reportedly wants the new Government to take a tough stand on the Intellectual Property (IP) related issues with the United States (US), the MNC lobbyists are raising the same old facade of so called ‘need to encourage innovation’ in India, which actually means, among others, for India to:

  • Amend its well-crafted IP regime
  • Change patentability criteria allowing product patents for even ‘frivolous innovation’ by scrapping Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act
  • Introduce Data Exclusivity
  • Implement patent linkages
  • Re-write the Compulsory Licensing (CL) provisions and not bother at all, even if patented drugs are priced astronomically high, denying access to majority of Indian population.

Interestingly MNC Lobby Groups, probably considering rest of the stakeholders too naive, continue to attempt packaging all these impractical demands on IP with unwavering straight face ‘story telling’ exercises, without specificity, on how well they are taking care of the needs of the poor in this country for patented medicines.

This approach though appears hilarious to many, MNC lobbyists with their single minded purpose on IP in India, keep repeating the same old story, blowing both hot and cold, nurturing a remote hope that it may work someday.

Recent views:

On this score, along with a large number of independent experts from across the world, very recently, even the former Chairman of Microsoft India reportedly advised the new ‘Modi Regime’ as follows:

“While the new government must work hard to make India more business friendly, it must not cave in to pressure on other vital matters. For instance, on intellectual property protection, there is enormous pressure from global pharmaceutical companies for India to provide stronger patent protection and end compulsory licensing. These are difficult constraints for a country where 800 million people earn less than US$ 2 per day.”

The Chairman of the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt also echoes the above sentiment by articulating, “I think Indian government should stay firm on the Patents Act, which we have agreed.” 

Other domestic pharma trade bodies and stakeholder groups in India reportedly expect similar action from the ‘Modi Government’.

Strong India matters:

India is the largest foreign supplier of generic medicines to America, having over 40 percent share in its US$ 30-billion generic drug and Over-The-Counter (OTC) product market.

Thus, expecting that Indian Government would wilt under pressure, the 2014 ‘Special 301 Report’ of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has retained India on its ‘Priority Watch List’, terming the country as violators of the US Patents Law. It has also raised serious concern on the overall ‘innovation climate’ in India urging the Government to address the American concerns in all the IP related areas, as mentioned above. 

My earlier submission in this regard:

In my blog post of February 5, 2014, I argued that patentability is related mainly to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. and India has time and again reiterated that this provision and all the sections for invoking CL in India are TRIPS compliant. If there are still strong disagreements in the developed world in this regards, the Dispute Settlement Body of the ‘World Trade Organization (WTO)’can be approached for a resolution, as the WTO has clearly articulated that:

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

Thus, it is quite intriguing to fathom, why are all these countries, including the United States, instead of creating so much of hullabaloo, not following the above approach in the WTO for alleged non-compliance of TRIPS by India?

How should the new Government respond?  – The view of a renowned pro-Modi Economist:

Subsequent to my blog post of February 5, 2014, as mentioned above, a recent article dated March 4, 2014 titled “India Must Call The US’ Bluff On Patents” penned by Arvind Panagariya, Professor of Economics at Columbia University, USA, who is also known as a close confidant of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stated as follows, probably taking my earlier argument forward:

“Critics of the Indian patent law chastise it for flouting its international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. When confronted with these critics, my (Arvind Panagariya) response has been to advise them:

  • To urge the US to challenge India in the WTO dispute settlement body and test whether they are indeed right.
  • But nine years have elapsed since the Indian law came into force; and, while bitterly complaining about its flaws, the USTR has not dared challenge it in the WTO. Nor would it do so now.
  • Why?
  • There is, at best, a minuscule chance that the USTR will win the case.
  • Against this, it must weigh the near certainty of losing the case and the cost associated with such a loss.
  • Once the Indian law officially passes muster with the WTO, the USTR and pharmaceutical lobbies will no longer be able to maintain the fiction that India violates its WTO obligations.
  • Even more importantly, it will open the floodgates to the adoption of the flexibility         provisions of the Indian law by other countries.
  • Activists may begin to demand similar flexibilities even within the US laws.

On possible actions against India under the ‘Special 301’ provision of the US trade law, Professor Arvind Panagariya argues:

  • “Ironically, this provision itself was ruled inconsistent with the WTO rules in 1999 and the US is forbidden from taking any action under it in violation of its WTO obligations.
  • This would mean that it couldn’t link the elimination of tariff preferences on imports from India to TRIPS violation by the latter.
  • The withdrawal of preferences would, therefore, constitute an unprovoked unilateral action, placing India on firm footing for its retaliatory action.”

US power play on IP continuing for a while:

United States, pressurized by its powerful pharma lobby groups, started flexing its muscle against India for a while. You will see now, how this short video clip captures the American ‘Power Play’ in this area.

Conclusion: 

It is undeniable that there is moderately strong undercurrent in the current relationship between the United States and India, mostly based on differences over the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

The resourceful MNC pharmaceutical lobby groups with immense influence in the corridors of power within the Capitol Hill, are reportedly creating this difference for unfair commercial gain.

All these are being attempted also to blatantly stymieing India’s efforts to ensure access to affordable medicines for a vast majority of the global population without violating any existing treaty commitments, as reiterated by a large number of experts in this area.

Professor Arvind Panagariya reportedly calls it: “The hijacking of the economic policy dialogue between the U.S. and India by pharmaceutical lobbies in the U.S.”

That said, while cordial relationship with the United States in all economic and other fronts must certainly be rejuvenated and adequately strengthened with utmost sincerity, the newly formed Federal Government at New Delhi with Prime Minister Narendra Modi as its bold and strong face, should not hesitate to call the US bluff on IP… for India’s sake.

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.

 

Humongous Pharma Corruption: China Ups The Ante…and India?

Posted on by
Reply

In the ‘pharma bribery’ related scandal in China, many postulated that the Chinese Government has cracked down selectively on Multinational Corporations (MNCs) to extend unfair business advantages for its local players.

Media reports of September 2013 indicate that in all probability the intent of the Chinese Government is not to spare homegrown corruption in this area. The country appears to be taking tough measures against both global and local perpetrators of such criminal acts, which have spread their vicious tentacles deep into the booming Chinese pharmaceutical industry.

The report names the following domestic companies:

  • Sino Biopharmaceutical Ltd has set up a team to investigate allegations broadcast on the state television that its majority-owned subsidiary had paid for illegal overseas trips for doctors to Thailand and Taiwan.
  • Privately held Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals investigating allegations of spending around US$ 130.75 million to bribe doctors to promote their pharmaceutical products over five years.

More MNCs under investigation:

At the same time, international media are reporting names of more and more big global pharma players allegedly involved in this humongous scam, as follows:

  • In July 2013, the British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was allegedly involved in around US$ 490 million deceptive travel and meeting expenses as well as trade in sexual favors. Chinese authorities detained four senior executives of GSK in China to further investigate into this matter.
  • In the same month Chinese police reportedly visited the Shanghai office of another British pharmaceutical major AstraZeneca for investigation related to this scam.
  • In August 2013, Sanofi of France reportedly said that it would cooperate with a review of its business in China after a whistle-blower’s allegations that the company paid about US$ 276,000 in bribes to 503 doctors in the country.
  • Again in August 2013, a former employee of the Swiss pharmaceutical major Novartis has reportedly claimed that her manager urged her to offer ‘kickback’ to doctors to increase use of the cancer drug Sandostatin LAR. She had about US$ 105,000 budget for payments to doctors who prescribed at least 5 doses, aiming for 50 doses in all. She filed the compensation claim of US $817,000 after resigning from the company.
  • In the same month, another whistleblower has reportedly made bribery allegations involving Eli Lilly of the United States and US$ 4.9 million in purported kickbacks to Chinese doctors.
  • In September 2013, media reports indicated that the Chinese authorities are investigating the German pharma major – Bayer over a “potential case of unfair competition”.
  • Another very recent report of September 17, 2013 states, Alcon Eye Care division of Novartis is investigating allegation of fabricated clinical trials to bribe doctors. The report says Alcon outsourced the trials to a third-party research company, which in turn compensated doctors with “research payments”. It is claimed by the whistleblower that Alcon used funds earmarked for “patient experience surveys” on lens implants to bribe doctors at more than 200 hospitals. One doctor received about US$ 7,300, for studying 150 patients. Alcon allegedly spent more than US$ 230,000, on such studies last year.

This list of pharmaceutical companies involved in alleged serious malpractices to boost their sales and profits in China is probably not exhaustive.

However, only time will unravel whether this juggernaut of scams will keep moving unabated despite all high voltage actions, bulldozing patients’ interest.

Crack down on food companies too:

Crack down of the Chinese Government on alleged malpractices has reportedly extended to milk products’ companies too.

Again in August 2013, Mead Johnson Nutrition and Danone were among six dairy companies ordered to pay a combined 669 million Yuan by the Chinese Government for price fixing of their products.

Global industry lobby has a different view point:

In an interview with the BBC, an expert from APCO Worldwide, considered as the giant of the lobbying industry said:

“China’s behavior was very worrisome for foreign companies. They don’t know what’s hitting them right now. The government is resorting to its traditional “toolbox” of coercive methods, including shaming and ordering people to confess that they’ve done wrong so that your penalties can be minimized. They’re just treating foreign companies the way they’ve treated their own for many years, and this is the way the Party does things.”

He continued, “What may be going on is they’re telling foreign companies and they’re telling private companies here: Behave yourself; remember we’re the Party, we’re in charge.”

This is seemingly an interesting way of pooh-poohing serious allegations of bribery and other malpractices by the pharmaceutical companies in China without even waiting for the results of the pending enquiry.

However, such comments coming from an industry lobbying organization or any Public Relations (PR) Agency is not uncommon. That’s their business.

Possible reasons for crack down:

Experts opine that China has a high drug price problem. This is vindicated by the fact that while most developed nations of the world spend not more than 10-12 percent of their healthcare budget on medicines, in China it exceeds 40 percent. This huge disparity is believed to have prompted Beijing’s crackdown on the industry, especially the MNCs that dominate the Chinese pharmaceutical industry with newer drugs. The powerful National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of China has already said that it is examining pricing by 60 local and international pharmaceutical companies.

Some other reports point out, low basic salary of the doctors at the 13,500 public hospitals in China, who are the key purchasers of drugs, is the root cause of corruption in the Chinese healthcare industry.

According to McKinsey with estimated healthcare spending of China nearly tripling to US$1 trillion by 2020 from $357 billion in 2011, the country is increasingly attracting pharma and medical equipment companies from all over the world in a very large number.

The fall out:

A recent media report indicates that Chines crackdown on the widespread pharma bribery scandal in the country is quite adversely affecting the sales of both global and local players, as many doctors in the Chinese hospitals are now refusing to see medical representatives for fear of being caught up in this large scam.

Drug expenditure is even more for healthcare in India:

Several studies indicate that Out Of Pocket Expenditure towards Healthcare in India is one of the highest in the world and ranges from 71 to 80%.

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare as follows:

Items Outpatient/ outside Hospital (%) Inpatient/ Hospitalization (%)
Medicines 63 43
Consultation/Surgery - 23
Diagnostics 17 16
Minor surgeries 01 -
Private Consultation 14 -
Room Charge - 14
Others 05 04

Despite these facts, India has remained virtually inactive in this critical area so far, unlike China, except some sporadic price control measures like, Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs (NLEM 2011), which covers around 18% of the total pharmaceutical market in India.

Universal Healthcare (UHC): A possible answer?

Another interesting study titled, ‘The Cost of Universal Health Care in India: A Model Based Estimate’ concludes as follows:

The estimated cost of UHC delivery through the existing mix of public and private health institutions would be INR 1713 (USD 38) per person per annum in India. This cost would be 24% higher, if branded drugs are used. Extrapolation of these costs to entire country indicates that Indian government needs to spend 3.8% of the GDP for universalizing health care services, although in total (public+private) India spent around 4.2% of its GDP on healthcare (2010) at 11% CAGR from 2001 to 2010 period.

Moreover, important issues such as delivery strategy for ensuring quality, reducing inequities in access, and managing the growth of health care demand need be explored.

Thus, it appears, even UHC will be 24% more expensive after a public spend of staggering 3.8% of the GDP towards healthcare, if branded drugs are used, which attract huge avoidable marketing expenditures, as we have seen in the Chinese pharma industry scandal.

High marketing costs making drugs dearer?

A recent article, captioned “But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?” vindicates the point, though the drug companies spend substantial money on R&D, they spend even more on their marketing related activities, legally or otherwise.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A: 23% to 34%
R&D: 12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, the marketing practices have still remained a very contentious issue despite many attempts of self-regulation by the industry. Incessant media reports on alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down significantly, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation. This is indeed a critical point to ponder.

Scope and relevance of ‘Corporate Ethical Business Conducts and Values’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts and value standards’ of a company should not just be limited to marketing. These should usually encompass the following areas, among many others:

  • The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
  • Caring for the society and environment
  • Fiduciary responsibilities
  • Business and marketing practices
  • R&D activities, including clinical trials
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate espionage

That said, codes of ethical conduct, corporate values and their compliance should not only get limited to the top management, but must get percolated downwards, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to codes of business ethics and corporate values are important to know, but perceptible qualitative changes in ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): A deterrent?

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen.

FCPA currently has some impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

However, looking at the ongoing Chinese story of pharma scams and many other reports of huge sums paid by the global pharmaceutical companies after being found guilty under such Acts in the Europe and USA, it appears, levy of mere fines is not good enough deterrent to stop such (mal)practices in today’s perspective.

China acts against pharma bribery, why not India? 

Like what happened in China, many reports, including from Parliamentary Standing Committee, on alleged pharma malpractices of very significant proportions, which in turn are making drugs dearer to patients, have been coming up in India regularly, since quite sometime.

Keeping these into consideration, abject inertia of the government in taking tough measures in this area is indeed baffling and an important area of concern.

Conclusion:

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and more importantly their effective compliance, in letter and spirit, are of increasing relevance in the globalized business environment.

Unfortunately, as an irony, increasingly many companies across the world are reportedly being forced to pay heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments.

Intense quarterly pressure for expected business performance by stock markets and shareholders, could apparently be the trigger-points for short changing such codes and values.

There is, of course, no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ uniformly across the world. However, even if these are implemented in country-specific ways, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and ‘owning responsibility’.

That said, to uphold patients’ interests, China is already giving the perpetrators of the ongoing humongous pharma scam a ‘run for life’, as it were, despite what the industry lobbyists have been laboriously working on for the world to believe. Today, common patients’ in India being in a much worse situation for similar sets of reasons, should the domestic regulators not now wake up from the ‘deep slumber’, up all antennas, effectively act by setting examples and bring the violators to justice?

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.

 

Generics’ Lobby, Innovators’ Lobby and the Pharmaceutical Data Protection in India – A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

To meet the unmet needs of the patients and improve access to healthcare in India mere discovery of a new pharmaceutical entity is not enough. The journey from mind to market is indeed an arduous one.

For the patients’ sake:

From the viewpoint of patients, proper evaluation of the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines are critical. Towards this direction, substantial clinical data needs to be generated through extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials to satisfy the regulatory authorities for marketing approval of a New Molecular Entity (NME).

Reasons why the innovators data will need protection:

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, Data Protection (DP) is justifiable on the following grounds:

a. Generation of data by the originator to ensure safety and efficacy of the drugs for the patients involves considerable cost, time and efforts.

b. Submission of detail clinical data is a regulatory requirement for the interest of the patients. Without such obligation to the Government, the data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation for the Government to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure.

c. Since the data is proprietary during the patent period, any access to such data for commercial use by the second applicant without the concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.
d. Any failure by the Government to provide the required protection to the data would lead to “unfair commercial use”.

e. Without DP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair commercial disadvantage as compared to their generic counterparts. Generic players do not incur similar huge costs for meeting the mandatory requirements of the regulatory authorities for NMEs.

Patent Protection and Data Protection – two different IPRs:

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection or Data Exclusivity is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

Data Protection will provide substantial benefits to the stakeholders:

Benefits to Patients:

DP ensures stringent evaluation of overall safety and efficacy of drugs launched in the market. Mere proving of Bioequivalence/ Bioavailability (sometimes on as low as 12 healthy volunteers in India) does not guarantee drug safety as the impurities profile of the duplicator’s drug is likely to be different than that of the originator.

Benefits to Doctors:

Doctors continuously seek scientific information. Clinical evaluation becomes valuable from this perspective. Once provisions for DP are made, comprehensive and quality data can be collected and the detail scientific information be provided to the doctors to update their knowledge for the ultimate benefits of the patients.

Benefits to Researchers:

Clinical researchers in India can win substantial share of this global market with DP as an effective driver in the evolving scenario. There will be increased R&D collaborations. India’s cost arbitrage, speed and skills in clinical trial and research could be leveraged more effectively.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted the significance of DP, as follows:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

Benefits to Pharmaceutical Industry:

Research is a key driver for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Scientists prefer to work in research laboratories in those countries which provide full-fledged protection to IPR. DP is one of the Intellectual Property Rights. Reversal of brain drain and retention of scientific talents will help the developing economies, like India intensify its R&D efforts. More Indian pharmaceutical companies, while globalizing the business, will engage themselves in partnerships and collaborations with research based global companies.

Indian scientists would need DP to protect their Intellectual Property as many Indian pharmaceutical companies have already started increasing their R&D budgets.

Benefits to Governments:

Once India moves from a stand-alone position to one which aligns itself with the world in terms of IPRs, including DP, India is likely to increase trade not only in ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), MERCOSUR countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay & Uruguay) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), but even in regulated markets like USA and Europe. There will be increase in scientific education, technology transfer and quality employment.

Could Data Protection affect the legal generics or delay their launch?

Unfortunately, a bogey is raised to create an impression that DP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, adversely affecting the domestic and export business of the local players. Following facts will prove the irrelevance of the arguments propounded by this lobby:

• DP refers only to new products patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

• USA is an outstanding example, which demonstrates that research based global companies and the generic industry can co-exist, offering dual benefits of innovative drugs and cheaper off-patent generic medicines to the patients.

• More number of patented medicines will ensure faster growth of the generic industry, after the former goes off-patent. In the USA which has a long standing DP regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at over half of all the prescriptions. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984 that provided for a 5 year period of DP in the USA, there were spurt of development of New Drugs together with quicker entry of generics into the market.

• The apprehension that growth of the generic market will slow down with DP, is ill-founded. Indian companies, on the contrary, are aggressively seeking growth opportunities for generics in markets like the USA and Europe where DP is already in place.

• Domestic Indian companies will be dependent upon implementation of a fully compliant TRIPs regime, including DP for their business growth in these markets.

• DP does not prevent generic manufacturers from submitting their own pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data within the period of DP and thus gain marketing approval for their products.

DP controversy is based on a narrow perspective, as it is not an issue of “Generics vs. R&D based companies”. It is a much larger issue. DP and patents are important for all research based companies irrespective of their Indian or foreign origin.

Data Protection is not ‘Evergreening’:

DP is not ‘Evergreening’ either. In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and DP will run concurrently.

During the debate on the subject some people argue that DP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not. Fundamentally, these two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. DP cannot extend the life of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, DP protects the clinical Dossier submitted to the regulatory authority from their unfair commercial use. The duration of DP is typically half or less than that of a patent.

Most WTO member countries have Data Protection:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of DP.
Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the Laws related to DP. The period of DP is typically between 5 to 10 years.

Conclusion:

Dr. Satwant Reddy Committee Report, dated November 30, 2006, submitted to the Government of India, very clearly recommends that DP will benefit India, as it has done in many other countries of the world, including China. Unfortunately, the report does not specify a timeline for its implementation. Thus having accepted the importance and relevance of the DP, the Government should implement the same in the country, without any further delay.

Data Protection should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs Act to bring India in conformity with the practices of other WTO Members of the developing and developed countries.

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.