Tag Archives: Patent

Innovation, IPR and Altruism in Public Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still much is needed to be done:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Provision for Compulsory Licensing (CL) in India – some issues still need to be addressed.

Posted on by
Reply
Patent law systems provide for a provision for granting of compulsory licenses in a number of circumstances. Article 5A(2) of The Paris Convention, 1883 indicates that each contracting State may take legislative measures for the grant of compulsory licenses and reads as follows:“Each country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.”TRIPS agreement also contains important public health safeguards provisions to allow countries to override TRIPS requirements by engaging in compulsory licensing under certain situations and circumstances. Globally all patent systems comply with the requirements of TRIPS.

Doha declaration:

Doha Declaration gives WTO member-countries the right to grant compulsory licences (CL) and the right to decide on the reasons upon which such licences are to be granted. The declaration also states that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted and implemented by the member-countries in a manner to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all.

“Safeguards provision” in India:

The Indian Patent Act 2005 bestows enough power to the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs of India to issue compulsory licenses (CL) under following different sections of the Act:

1. Section 84:

This section prevents the abuse of patent as a monopoly and states that at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of grant of a patent, any interested person may make an application to the Indian Patent Office (IPO) for grant of compulsory licence on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or

(b) That the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or

(c) That the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India

Section 6 of section 84 states that in considering the application filed under this section, the controller shall take into account the following:

(i) The nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patent or licensee to make full use of the invention;

(ii) The ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

(iii) The capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application is granted;

(iv) Whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit:

Provided that this clause shall not be applicable in case of national emergencies or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use or on establishment of a ground of anti-competitive practices adopted by the patentee.

Terms and conditions of CL will be determined by the Controller under section 90.

2. Sections 92 (1) and 92 (3):

These sections enable the Central Government to deal with circumstances of national emergency or circumstance of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use by issuing CL.

3. Section 92 A:

This part enables grant of CL for export of patented pharmaceutical products in certain exceptional circumstances to any country having insufficient or no manufacturing capacity for the concerned product to address public health problems.

Some loose knots:

Some believe that there are still some loose knots in the CL provisions in India, which need to be tightened, immediately.

Granting CL for a Biopharmaceutical product could be an issue:

It will not be very easy to grant CL for a biopharmaceutical product as the conditions in which biopharmaceuticals are produced largely define the final product and its manufacturing process defines the product quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product.

Therefore following are the main issues, which need to be urgently addressed:

• Small changes in the manufacture of biopharmaceutical and biosimilar medicinal products can dramatically affect the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic molecule.

• The very nature of a biologic means that it is practically impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceuticals if identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies are not used. This has to be demonstrated in an extensive comparability program. Therefore a generic biopharmaceutical cannot possibly exist.

• Substitution issues:

By contrasts with the situation applicable for generic chemical entities, biosimilar medicines can be “similar” but not “identical” to the innovator reference products. The “similar, but not identical” nature of biosimilar medicines means that substitution of the innovator product with a biosimilar product could have clinical consequences as patients could respond differently to the two products. To guarantee the efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved following the submission of appropriate data generated with the biosimilar drug.

• Currently there are no published clear Indian guidelines for the approval of biosimilar drugs which will ensure the approval of efficacious and safe biosimilar drugs.

Some apprehensions on CL in India need to be addressed:

Some apprehensions have been expressed on possible misuse of CL and representations made to the government to address the following issues urgently. Tarceva and Stutent cases involving Nepal will probably justify such apprehensions:

o As the entire concept is based on “Working of Patents” in India, the term “Working of Patents” needs to be defined explicitly.

o Issuance of CL to be restricted to national emergency, extreme urgency and public non-commercial use

o Provisions in (Sec. 84 [7]) needs to be suitably amended that provide grounds for triggering CL by competitors for commercial benefits.

o Safeguards enshrined in the Aug 30 decision (Motta-Menon text) is to be provided for exports under Section 92A of the Indian Patents Act 2005, corresponding to Para 6 of the declaration on the TRIPS Agreement

Is paying royalty to patent holder an acceptable solution to this issue?

Many feel that this question totally ignores the right of an innovator to protect his/her innovation, which is the outcome of a painstaking, long, costly and risky R&D process. Such protection is granted to an innovator against disclosure of the data generated for the innovation to the patent office for public knowledge at large through grant of a patent for a specific time period. During this period the innovator is the exclusive owner of the innovation. The provision of CL can be invoked during this period, as stated above, for some very specific and extra-ordinary situation.

Such extra-ordinary situation, as and when will arise be addressed by the government based purely on the merits of the cases. Carte blanche permission by any authority allowing use of an innovator’s product during its patent life against a royalty payment, without innovators wish, is believed to be against the letter and spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005.

Conclusion:

In Indian Patents Act 2005, the provisions of CL should maintain a fine balance between the critical need of innovation by the pharmaceutical companies and its reach to the users to meet their unmet needs. For a country like India, CL is probably the most appropriate safeguard against potential abuse of monopoly by the patentees in case of national emergencies and to address critical public health issues.

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.

A brief history of the Indian Patent System from Indian Pharmaceutical Industry perspective, the concerns and opportunities.

Posted on by
Reply
Although a comprehensive Act on Patents and Designs allowing product patents of drugs came into force in India in 1911, the first Patents Act of India was enacted in 1856.This Act gave a head start to the global pharmaceutical companies in this business primarily through imports into India. As a result, in no time the global pharmaceutical companies curved out a sizeable chunk of the Indian pharmaceutical market capturing over 80% of the total domestic consumption of drugs and pharmaceuticals.It has been reported that in 1959 an American Senate Committee headed by Senator Kefauver wrote in its report:

“…in drugs, generally, India ranks amongst the highest priced nations of the world”.

In 1970 the Indian Patents Act was amended abolishing the product patent system, based on ‘Ayyangar Committee report, 1959’, which examined the factors influencing the high prices of the drugs and pharmaceuticals in India and concluded:

“.. high prices resulted from the monopoly control foreign based pharmaceutical companies exercised over the production of drugs.”

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 was, once again, amended under the TRIPS agreement and the Indian Patents Act, 2005 came into force effective January 1, 2005 , re-introducing product patents for the drugs and pharmaceuticals, as a part of the globalization process of the country including the pharmaceutical industry of India.

This is perhaps the testimony of India’s realization that research and development is the bed rock for the progress of pharmaceutical industry in any country in the long run, as this industry, unlike many other industries, relies quite heavily on product patents.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry to build on its acquired strength:

Reverse engineering with high calibre skills in process chemistry emerged as one of the key strengths of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry since 1970. The industry has to build on this strength and move towards ‘incremental innovation model’ of R&D, which is less expensive and more cost effective starting with a known substance, to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The product patent regime has given a boost to pharmaceutical R&D in India:

Many medium to large Indian pharmaceutical companies, like Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy’s Lab (DRL) and Glenmark etc. have already started shifting their focus on R&D. The large number of patent applications filed by these companies to the Indian patent offices will vindicate this point. As a result of the new focus, one observes business initiatives like, spinning off the R&D units into a separate company and many R&D driven mergers and acquisitions by these domestic Indian companies.

R&D investments are also being made in traditional chemistry based screening. Moreover, companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, and Bharat Biotech etc. have engaged themselves in the space of biotechnology research.

Increasing opportunity to collaborate with the global companies:

Increasingly more and more Indian companies have started collaborating with the global companies in collaborative research and cost efficient process development to leverage their human capital and infrastructural facilities. The collaborative arrangement towards this direction between GSK and Ranbaxy provides a good example.

Contract research and manufacturing:

Some other domestic companies like Divi’s Lab, Suven Pharma, Dishman Pharma, Piramal Healthcare, Shasun Chemicals, Jubilant Organosys etc. are moving into the space of contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) establishing world class facilities and collaborating with the global players like, GSK, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis etc.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in R&D:

Initiatives by the Indian companies in collaborative research with government research institutes like CSIR and NIPER have already commenced, though much lesser in number. Some companies like, Shasun have already derived benefits in the field of biotechnology out of such collaborative research under PPP. It is expected that more such projects will see the light of the day in not too distant future.

Some concerns in the new regime:

Some serious concerns are being raised as the country is in the process of settling down in the new paradigm. The key concern is about the affordability of patented products by those who are currently having access to other modern medicines.

To address such concerns related to public health issues in general, there are already provisions in the TRIPS agreement for price control of patented products.

At the same time, one finds, the government has exempted those patented products from price control, which are domestically produced with indigenous R&D. Many feel that these differential measures will not help improving affordability and access to such patented medicines by the common man.

Keeping prices of essential medicines under the lens of price regulator is more important:

Even over last sixty years of independence, the access to modern medicines in India is meager 35 percent. 65 percent of the nation’s population does not have any access even to off patent essential drugs. In a country like India where there is no adequate social security cover towards healthcare, it will be important to keep the prices of essential medicines for treating common diseases under the close vigil of the drug price regulator.

Will the prices of medicines spiral in the product patent regime of India?

While addressing this question one will need to keep in mind that around 98 percent of drugs, which are generic or branded generic, manufactured in India and costs cheaper than their equivalents available even in our neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, will continue to remain unaffected. Hence, it is very unlikely that prices of such medicines will go up significantly because of the new product patent regime in India.

Conclusion:

The key concerns raised in the new product patent regime are that it will further deteriorate the current poor access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population.

It is undeniable that one of the key reasons for poor access to essential medicines in India is lack of buying power of a large number of both rural and urban poor. This problem gets compounded by the poor public health infrastructure, delivery system and financing system, despite sporadic initiatives taken by the government towards this direction.

To be successful in the new regime by improving access to modern medicines to those who do not have means to satisfy such basic needs, the country should take a rational and holistic approach in this matter. It is high time for all the stakeholders to ponder and flesh-out the real factors, which have been responsible for such a dismal rate of access to modern medicines to a huge 65 percent of the country’s population over decades, even when the product patent law was not in place in the country.

By Tapan Ray

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

Recent efforts to improve the functioning of the WIPO-administered Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is a welcome step for the interest of India.

Posted on by
Reply
As the third largest user among developing countries of the PCT system, India has a particular interest in ensuring that the PCT system supports its innovators and exporters in the most efficient manner possible.
What does PCT system do?

The PCT system allows reliance on international searches and examination in assessing patentability but it does not preclude national examination including decisions on patentability at a national level. In that regard, the Director-General Francis Gurry of WIPO made the following remarks at the opening of the WIPO Assembly on September 22, which clearly states that PCT reform is not a norm setting exercise and is voluntary:

“…I would like to make specific mention of one project, which I believe to be of great significance, the so-called Road Map for the improvement of the functioning of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which will come up for consideration in the PCT Assembly during this meeting. This is not a norm-making exercise. The PCT makes it very clear (Article 27(5)) that nothing in it is to be construed as in any way limiting the freedom of each Contracting State to determine its own substantive conditions of patentability. Neither the PCT nor the Road Map in any way affects TRIPs flexibilities. The Road Map is about improving the functioning of a procedural treaty that links together the patent offices of the world. It is about finding ways to increase work-sharing, to decrease unnecessary inefficiencies, to improve the quality of the output of the international patent system and, thereby, to contribute to the management of the unsustainable backlog of 4.2 million unprocessed patent applications in the world. There are many initiatives occurring already in this regard: the Patent Prosecution Highway and work-sharing initiatives in ASEAN, in South America and between the Vancouver Group of Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. The PCT Road Map aims to bring all these initiatives ultimately under the multilateral umbrella of the PCT“.

PCT is not a substantive treaty:

The PCT is not a substantive treaty and it will not become one. By mixing up the different work streams of WIPO–some of which are substantive and some of which, like the PCT, are technical and administrative, some vested interests seek to create confusion. It is difficult to understand why such people would want to defeat a project that will permit Indian high-tech companies to leverage India’s strong educational and legal infrastructure to compete effectively in the global economy of the twenty-first century.

PCT has important ramifications:

The proposed changes in the PCT have indeed important ramifications for countries like India, as they represent the greater opportunities that the PCT changes will provide Indian commercial interests through an improved international patent search and examination process.

In many technological sectors, including pharmaceuticals, Indian innovators are finding that, indeed, strong intellectual property protection both in India and abroad is critical to the success of their business models. As a result they are becoming users of the PCT system. Opposition to the current WIPO efforts to improve the PCT system, I reckon, would deny Indian innovators these opportunities.

Indian innovators have a stake in WIPO PCT reform:

Indian innovators also have an important stake in “WIPO PCT Reform”. It is, therefore, very much in the interest of the Government of India that such reform succeeds now that it has reached elite status in the international intellectual property regime.

Just last year, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) became one of only fifteen national patent offices to be recognized as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) by WIPO. As an ISA, the Indian Patent Office now approves or establishes the title and conducts international searches. Scepticism of a group of vested interests on this much desirable “WIPO PCT Reform” could set back the international recognition that India has deservedly gained from being the only English speaking country in the Asian region to be recognized as an ISA and IPEA.

Conclusion:

I would, therefore, expect our Government to continue its support for efforts such as “WIPO PCT Reform” that seek to facilitate India’s further integration into the international economy while at the same time protecting Indian national interests.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

A paradigm shift:

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

The voice of concern:

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

TRIPS safeguard provisions:

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

These three TRIPS public health safeguard provisions are as follows:

A. Compulsory Licensing:

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

B. Parallel importing:

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

AND

C. Bolar Provisions

The Bolar Provision:

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

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

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

Is the Section 107A now under judicial scrutiny?

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

Conclusion:

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Emerging markets and a robust oncology portfolio expected to be the future growth engine of the global pharmaceutical industry… but not without associated pricing pressures.

Posted on by
Reply
When the growth rate of the developed markets of the global pharmaceutical industry started slowing down along with the declining R&D productivity, the emerging markets were identified as the new ‘El-Dorado’ by the global players. At the same time, new launch of anti-cancer drugs, more in number, started giving additional thrust to the growth engine of the industry, at least in the developed markets and for the ‘creamy layers’ of the emerging markets of the world. As cancer is being considered as one of the terminal illnesses, the cancer patients from all over the world, would like to have their anti-cancer medications, at any cost, even if it means just marginal prolongation of life with a huge debt burden.According to a recent study done by the Cancer Research, UK, despite significant decline in the overall global pharmaceutical R&D productivity over a period of time, in a relative yardstick, newer anti-cancer drugs have started coming up to the global market with a much greater frequency than ever before. ‘Pharmacy Europe’reports that 18 percent, against a previous estimate of 5 percent of 974 anti-cancer drugs will see the light of the day in the global market place, passing through stringent regulatory requirements. This is happening mainly because of sharper understanding of the basic biology of the disease by the research scientists.Another study reports that between 1995 and 2007 such knowledge has helped the scientists to molecularly target ‘kinase inhibitors’, which are much less toxic and offers much better side effect profile. Well known anti-cancer drug Herceptin of Roche is one of the many outcomes of molecularly targeted research.

Price of Anti-cancer drugs:

Although in the battle against the much dreaded disease cancer, the newer drugs which are now coming to the market, are quite expensive. Even in the developed markets the healthcare providers are feeling the heat of the cost pressure of such medications, which would in turn impact the treatment decisions. Probably because of this reason, to help the oncologists to appropriately discuss the treatment cost of anti-cancer drugs with the patients, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently has formed a task force for the same.

The issue is now being fiercely debated even in the developed markets of the world:

In the developed markets of the world, for expensive cancer medications, the patients are required to bear the high cost of co-payment, which may run equivalent to thousands of U.S dollars. Many patients are finding it difficult to arrange for such high co-payments.

Thus, it has been reported that even the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK considers some anti-cancer drugs not cost-effective enough for inclusion in the NHS formulary, sparking another set of raging debate.

‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ in one of its recent articles with detail analysis, expressed its concern over sharp increase in the price of anti-cancer medications, specifically.

Is the global pharmaceutical industry in a ‘gold rush’ to get into the oncology business?

Recently ‘The New York Times’ reported some interesting details. One such was on the global sales of anti-cancer drugs. The paper reports that in 1998 only 12 anti-cancer drugs featured within the top 200 drugs, ranked in terms of global value turnover of each. In that year Taxol was the only anti-cancer drug to achieve the blockbuster status with a value turnover of U.S$ 1 billion.

However, in 2008, within top 200 top selling drugs, 23 were for cancer with three in the top ten, clocking a global turnover of over U.S$ 1 billion each. 20 out of 126 drugs recording a sales turnover over U.S$ billion each, were for cancer, impressive commercial growth story of which is far from over now.

How to address this issue?

Experts are now deliberating upon to explore the possibility of creating a ‘comparative effectiveness center’ for anti-cancer drugs. This center will be entrusted with the responsibility to find out the most cost effective and best suited anti-cancer drugs that will be suitable for a particular patient, eliminating the possibility of wasteful expenses, if any, with the new drugs, just because of their newness and some additional features, which may not be relevant to a particular patient. If several drugs are found to be working equally well on a patient, most cost effective medication will be recommended to the particular individual.

Some new anti-cancer medications are of ‘me-too’ type:

‘The Journal of National Cancer Institute’ reports that some high price anti-cancer drugs are almost of ‘me too’ type, which can at best prolong the life of a patient by a few months or even weeks. To give an example the journal indicated, ‘Erbitux for instance, prolongs survival in lung cancer patients by 1.2 months… at a cost of U.S$ 80, 000 for an 18 – week course of treatment.’

However, the manufacturer of the drug later told ‘The Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ), ‘U.S.$ 80,000 is like a sticker price, but the street price is closer to U.S$ 10,000 per month” i.e around U.S$ 45,000 for 18 week course of treatment.

Conclusion:

Even in the developed countries, the heated debate on expensive new drugs, especially, in the oncology segment is brewing up and may assume a significant proportion in not too distant future. India being one of the promising emerging markets for the global pharmaceutical industry, willy nilly will get caught in this debate, possibly with a force multiplier effect, sooner than later.

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.

How to have a robust product patent enforcement mechanism, without getting involved into expensive litigations, frequently?

Posted on by
Reply
On August 28, 2009, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave petition filed by Roche challenging the order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court. Earlier the division bench had refused to grant an interim relief on Roche’s allegation that Cipla’s generic version of the anti-cancer therapy ‘erlotinib’ has infringed upon the patent granted to ‘Tarceva’. The Supreme Court, at the same time, issued an order to the Delhi High Court to hasten the trial of Tarceva patent infringement case, which is pending with the honourable court for some time.One of the main grounds for not granting an interim relief in favour of Roche by the Delhi High Court was of ‘public interest’, as the generic version of the Tarceva equivalent being sold by Cipla costs almost a third of that of the originator.Thereafter, when the case came before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the appellate bench upheld the earlier judgement of the court on the subject, with some other additional observations. One of which was on the challenge by Cipla regarding the validity of Tarceva patent.

After the August 28 order of the Supreme Court, it is expected that the patent infringement dispute of the case will be now be expeditiously resolved.

However, despite the above developments, the answer to the key question, ‘how to effectively enforce product patents in India, without getting involved into expensive and protracted litigation’, still remains as illusive.

How to find an answer to the root question?

Although astute legal experts will keep expressing their legal interpretations on such cases for all time to come and similar disputes will not cease to come up even after the pending cases are resolved, the key question about the effective enforcement mechanism of product patents in India, still keeps haunting. The moot question is:

‘How to effectively protect the product patents in India avoiding time consuming and expensive litigations by all concerned’?

Possible scenario:

It is quite likely that soon, we may witness the following scenario, as a routine:

1. Product patent is granted to the innovator, in India.

2. The product is marketed in India.

3. Marketing approval is granted to generic equivalents of the patented molecule, soon after the launch of the patented product.

4. Generic company launches the product with significant price differential.

5. The originator files a suit for patent infringement and seeks an interim relief from the court.

6. The generic company files a countersuit on the product patent.

7. The honorable court decides not to grant an interim relief against marketing of the cheaper generic equivalent, on the ground of ‘Public Interest’ among other key reasons.

8. The generic Company continues to sell the product.

9. Patent infringement case continues in the court of law.

10. The originator Company has no other option available, but to operate without a robust patent protection mechanism in the country and keep incurring expensive litigation related expenses, for years.

11. The next step, which may follow, we have not witnessed, as yet, in India.

12. However, if more number of generic equivalents is launched by more number of generic players, the litigation costs of the originator to protect the product patent will indeed be very exhorbitant.

What then could be the role of the government in such a scenario?

It is indeed a robust argument that all patent related disputes after the grant of a product patent (beyond post grant opposition) and product launch should be resolved by a court of law. But, will it encourage an innovator to grow its business in India with the patented products, meeting the unmet needs of many patients and contributing to the growth of the industry?

Why then should the country have a product patent law?

Generic equivalent of a patented product will always cost significantly less than an innovator’s patented product for which there will perpetually be an important issue of ‘Public Interest’. This issue will not be very easy to ignore either. However, if the government also feels that way, it will be interesting to fathom, why then did the country opt for a product patent regime, enacting product patent laws in 2005 with a promise for effective enforcement of product patents in the country?

Conclusion:

In my view, as I expressed in my previous articles as well, if the government wants to enforce the product patents granted in India, without burdening the companies with expensive litigation costs, the only way will be to work out a robust system of ‘Patent Linkage’ within the country.

By Tapan Ray

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

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.