Tag Archives: on

The stormy debate on wrongful grant of pharma product patents – a countdown of the news events, for a quick perspective.

Posted on by
Reply
To give a quick perspective to this debate, I reckon, a countdown of five reported news events on the subject will be helpful. I start from February, 2009 and gradually go one year back, to February, 2008, to capture the key elements of this stormy debate. Finally, I move to ‘ground zero’ to explore the basic remedial measures to effectively address the issue.Event 5‘The Economic times’ (ET) dated February 24, 2009 reported an interesting news item titled, “Dichotomy between patent law and practice”. The timing of this article, with its various quotes, highlighting the following points, evokes interest:

1.“Indian patent authorities are virtually not following the spirit of the Sections 3(d) and 3(e)”.

2.“A large number of patents granted in India since 2005 pertain to products first patented in 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, most of which were launched in Indian markets long before 2005, the year of introduction of product patenting in the country”.

3.“The patent applicants are not making adequate disclosures, making it difficult for potential challengers to file post-grant objections which the law provides for. Since the International Non-proprietary Name (INN) is not of the drug is often not given along with the Title of the Patent, it is cumbersome for anyone to trace the patent to the original PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application and have an idea about how new it is”.

4.“Many law firms refuse to take briefs from Indian companies, because their multinational clients do not permit them to do so! The result— post-grant objection facility is not effectively used by Indian companies.”

Why are these observations interesting?

These observations are interesting because for point number 1 to 3, as stated above, following three recourses are available to all:

1. After publication of the patent applied for, in the patent journal, one can file a pre-grant opposition.

2. Assuming that someone has missed this opportunity, the provision for filing post grant opposition will still be there.

3. Assuming that both the opportunities have been missed due to some reasons and one could not understand the details of the patent applied for, during the patent granting process, the opportunity of going to a Court of law with a request to make such patents (which have violated section 3.d) invalid, will still exist.

It is indeed very difficult to understand why such measures are not being taken by the aggrieved parties, as specified in the law.

Point number four is even more difficult to understand. When lawyers are available to the domestic companies to defend alleged patent infringement, why then lawyers will not be available to them to take such objections to a court of law?

Event 4

Mint dated October 7, 2008 in its article titled; “Cozy deals and conflicting interest mark patent granting process” reported the following:

“There are even local and multinational corporates who ‘seek’ help of examiners and controllers to get their applications drafted, thereby ensuring a grant for a price”.

Event 3

‘The Economic Times’ dated July 1, 2008 reported in its article titled, “Cipla gets patent for Nexium, Fosamax modified versions” that Mumbai Patent office granted these two patents to Cipla in April, 2008 for new forms of two well known blockbuster drugs, Esomeprazole (Nexium of Astra Zeneca) and Alendronate (Fosamax of Merck). This news came as a big surprise because Cipla is well known for its continuous accusation to innovator companies for trying to extend ‘monopoly’ period by ever-greening patent through similar means. The report, therefore, raised a very valid question, whether Cipla has ‘walked the talk’ in India? It will be interesting to know on what basis Cipla managed to overcome the ‘efficacy’ barriers under section 3(d).

On this ET report, well known IPR expert Shamnad Basheer wrote the following in his blog dated July 6, 2008:

“Reading the ET piece, Nathan Evans of Finnegan Henderson, who’s a very astute commentator on the Indian patent scene and has written a couple of articles in this regard posed this question to me:

“This makes me wonder if the patent office in India will apply the laws less strictly to Indian pharmas than MNCs (kind of like they apply the patent laws more strictly for essential medicines)”

Shamnad Basheer concluded his comment on this subject with the following observations:

“How ought section 3(d) to be interpreted when our very own generic manufacturers are applying for supposedly “incremental” inventions?”

Event 2

According to Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI) report dated March 7, 2008, FICCI and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and Industry have joined hands to set up a working group to improve Intellectual Property regime in India.
It will be interesting to know the view of this joint working group between the Government and the Industries, in this matter. I have not read anywhere any comments of this important working group on such matter, so far.

Event 1

‘Thomson and Reuters patent focus report’ dated February, 2009 observed absence of clear guidelines (Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure) about some of the complex provisions of patent law, particularly section 3(d). The report indicated that there should be clarity on what would qualify as “enhanced efficacy” under section 3(d) so that it can help the patent examiners to clearly make out which patent applications would fall under section 3(d).

Ground Zero:

Let us now try to ponder, realize and fathom the core issue of this problem, which lies at the ‘Ground Zero’. Thus far we have been reading constant allegations about the functioning of Indian Patent Offices and even on their integrity and honesty.

In absence of a well drafted, long overdue, Patent Manual, all concerned, including patent examiners will have their own ways of looking into “enhanced efficacy”. In such a situation, I shall not be surprised if the Patent Examiners suffer from the dilemma as to what exactly will constitute “enhanced efficacy”.

Protracted debate with the stakeholders on the ‘draft patent manual’ appears to be over now. The last stakeholders’ meeting on this subject was concluded in Kolkata following Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, several months ago. However, the final Patent Manual is still not in place, which has been kept for public inspection since 2005.

To address this stormy debate, in my view, we need to:

1. Push for expeditious release and implementation of the Patent Manual (Manual of Patent Practice
and Procedure).

2. Let FICCI – DIPP working group work more effectively and cohesively for better functioning of the
new IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) regime.

3. Let ‘capacity building’ exercise at the Indian Patent office (IPO) continue with greater speed.

Mere accusation and constant bashing of the IPOs, as we now see around, may not yield much result. After having taken the above measures, if similar dissatisfaction in any quarter still remains, let law take its own course. Despite great apprehensions by some, as quoted above under point 1, never mind, enough lawyers will be available to fight such cases.

By Tapan Ray

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

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

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.

On ‘Patent Linkage’ – a rational argument on an emotive debate

Posted on by
Reply
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.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.In India, during last twelve months, at least 4 patents were infringed by the local generic companies. All these cases are currently under litigation. No one at this stage will possibly be able to hazard a guess as to when will these cases ultimately get resolved. If it takes another two to three years to get the final verdict from the honourable High Courts, the revenue of the innovator companies who have already launched their patented products in India will get shaved off, at least for this period, leaving a very adverse commercial impact on them. There is a theoretical possibility that it may take even more time for the honourable High Courts to resolve these cases and during the remaining period of limited patent life of these products the cases may not get resolved, at all.

Moreover, 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. 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 patients. The moot question that follows is who is responsible to ensure the sanctity of the product patent system in India?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

My experience of the last three years of post product patent regime in India prompts the need for establishing a “Patent Linkage” system without further delay, not only for effective patent protection but also to encourage innovators to get more involved and engaged in the process of innovation in India.

Will India be the unique country if such a system of “Patent Linkage” is put in place? The answer is obviously ‘no’.

In the largest market of the global pharmaceutical industry, the USA, such a system exists. US FDA maintains a listing of pharmaceutical products known as the ‘Orange Book’. The soft copy of the ‘Orange Book’ is also available through internet at: http:/www.fda.gov/cder/ob/.

US FDA does not authorize marketing approval of generic versions of patented molecules listed in the ‘Orange Book’.

What then happens in the second largest market of the global pharmaceutical industry, the European Union (EU)? In the EU, sanctity of the product patent is ensured by granting 10/11 years data exclusivity. Thus, if any company intends to introduce a generic version of a patented molecule, it will have to generate its own sets of entire regulatory data through a very long and expensive process, which may take several years. Even after spending huge amount money and time towards generation of their own clinical data, there is no guarantee that such companies will be able to market the product without getting involved into expensive patent infringement litigation. Thus in the EU, the deterrent to make such an ambitious attempt is humongous.

Various types of ‘Patent Linkage’ system also exists in Australia, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, UAE, Singapore, China etc. While putting in place of such a system is reportedly in progress in countries like, Chile, Dominican Republic – Central America, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman etc.

To conclude, in my view, when the Government of India is the sole authority to grant product patents in India, it is the responsibility of the same Government to protect those patents through its Health Regulatory System i.e. DCGI’s office. I reckon, such a system already exists in India. The procedure of (‘Patent Linkage’) checking the patent status before granting marketing approval already exists in FORM 44, which is an application to the DCGI for grant of permission to import or manufacture a New Drug or to undertake clinical trial in India. In the first page of FORM 44 (available in the website of the DCGI) under ‘Particulars of New Drug’ in point 8, it seeks details of the ‘Patent Status of the drug’. Can this information be not effectively utilized to justifiably deny marketing approval of a generic version of a patented molecule during its patent life in India? If not, it is difficult to make out what purpose will the DCGI utilize this information for?

Thus in my view, the procedure to be followed for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India is already in place. There is hardly any need to reinvent this wheel either. The Health Regulatory Authority of India should now make this procedure work effectively in its obligation to adhere to the commitment of the national Government to honour Article 21.1 of WTO TRIPS Agreement.

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.