Tag Archives: Patent

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

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

Government accepts the Mashelkar committee Report:

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

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

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

R&D based Indian Pharmaceutical industry gains considerably:

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

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

Mashelkar committee categorically observes the following:

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

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

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

Wait a minute – wait a minute:

The report also suggests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Patent Linkage: an important step yet to be taken by the Government of India for proper enforcement of product patents granted in the country

Posted on by
Reply
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.
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.

Some people question why should India follow Patent Linkage system in the regulatory approval process?

In India ground realities in the patent enforcement process are quite unique. Thus there is an urgent need for having a Patent Linkage system in place for the following reasons:

1. The Government is granting product patent to encourage, protect and reward innovation in India, it will not be in the best interest of the innovators if the same Government grants marketing approval for a generic equivalent of the patented molecule during the patent life of the product.

2. Unlike many other countries, the Indian Patent Law has provision for both pre-grant and post-grant oppositions. Therefore, if anyone wants to challenge the patent, enough time will be available for the same.

3. After patent is granted for a product in India, if marketing approval is given to a generic equivalent of the same molecule, a dispute or patent infringement may arise. As per the Patents Act 2005, such disputes regarding patent infringement have to be challenged in a High Court. The judicial process is a long drawn one and it is quite possible that the patent life of the concerned molecule would expire during the dispute settlement period, which in turn, would raise doubts about the sanctity of granting a product patent to an innovator in our country.

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 implemented.

India has instances where marketing permission has been granted by the DCGI for a generic product even when a product patent already exists for the same molecule in India. Such instances put the patent holder in a hardship and avoidable litigation involving huge resources both in terms of time and money. Situation like this can be effectively avoided by ascertaining the patent status before granting marketing permission to a generic manufacturer through an appropriate drug regulatory system, as indicated above.

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.

Contract Research – a rapidly evolving business opportunity in India: Is the Pharmaceutical Industry making the best use of it?

Posted on by
Reply
A quick perspective of the ‘new-era’ pharmaceutical R&D in India:
Since 1970 up until 2005, Indian pharmaceutical industry used to be considered as the industry of ‘reverse engineering’ and that too with an underlying disparaging tone… and also as the industry of ‘copycat’ medicines’.

However, it will be absolutely unfair on my part to comment that only domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies launched ‘copycat’ versions of patented products in India and no multinational companies (MNCs) resorted to this practice, during this period.

Long before Indian Product Patent regime was put in place, in January 1, 2005, around 1998/99 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) entered into a bilateral agreement with Novo Nordisk and Ranbaxy with Bayer of Germany to out-license two New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and a New Drug Delivery System (NDDS), respectively for further development.

Opened the new vistas of opportunities:

These research initiatives opened the new vistas of opportunities for the Indian pharmaceutical industry in terms of R&D, in the pharmaceutical science. The above new developments also brought in a sense of determination within the research oriented domestic pharmaceutical players to enter into the big ticket game of the global pharmaceutical industry called ‘product discovery research’.

The jubilation of the industry having demonstrated its initial capability of taking a leap into forthcoming new paradigm of that time, received a set back momentarily when Novo Nordisk terminated the development of both the NCEs of DRL, after a couple of years, because of scientific reasons. However, DRL continued to move on to its chosen path, undeterred by the initial set back.

Need to focus on R&D and create world class ‘Intellectual Properties’:

In a letter addressed to the shareholders of DRL in one of its recent annual reports, the founder and the chairman of the company Dr. Anji Reddy expressed his following vision:

“Excelling in the basic business operations will be necessary, but not sufficient. To maintain a long-term presence in the global pharmaceuticals markets and to grow profitably will require companies to be even more focused on R&D and creation of successful IPR’s [intellectual property rights].”

After India signed the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, Indian pharmaceutical companies were quick to make out that the ball game of doing pharmaceutical business in the new IPR regime will be quite different. Having pharmaceutical product patents will indeed be important in future, for the domestic R&D based pharmaceutical companies.

The Past versus Present R&D models in India:

Domestic research based pharmaceutical companies did realize in the early days that a radical shift in their focus from ‘process research’ to ‘product discovery research’ may not be prudent or practical either.

Some of these companies initiated step-wise approach from mid 90’s to meet the challenge of change, come year 2005. During the transition period of 10 years as given by the WTO to India from 1995 to 2005, some domestic companies wanted to make full use of their past R&D model.

The past model:

Before the product patent regime, Indian pharmaceutical companies used to manufacture and market generic equivalents of the patented drugs at a fraction of the price of the originators, with non-infringing process technology in the Indian domestic market and also for export to the other non-regulated markets. During the WTO transition period of 10 years, they increased the pace of utilization of this model and launched as many ‘copycat’ versions of the new products as possible to boost up their sales and profit.

The present model for regulated markets:

Following two strategies are followed:

1. Indian companies doing generic business in the regulated markets like the USA submit
“Abbreviated New Drug Application” (ANDA) to the drug regulator for approvals of drugs,
which will go off patent within the next few years, so that the generic products could be launched
immediately after patent expiry.

2. Many other companies follow the second avenue, simultaneously, which is though risky but very
remunerative. In this case, the generic market entry takes place by challenging the patents of the
innovators.

It is believed that this model is being used by the Indian pharmaceutical companies, primarily to raise financial resources to get more engaged in their drug discovery initiatives or to generate wherewithal for collaborative or contract research initiatives.

For short term business growth and to raise fund for discovery research, their non-infringing process research initiatives have been proved to be quite useful. These R&D based Indian pharmaceutical companies; seem to understand very well that discovery of NCEs/NMEs or getting involved in this process will ultimately be ‘the name of the game’ to fuel longer term business growth of their respective organizations.

Contract Research (CR) in India:

Contract research is another business model within the overall R&D space, where a significant part of the investments come from the collaborators. CR business model currently explore the following two key options:

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the discovery will go to the global collabolator and the
Indian CR organization will get an upfront or milestone payments.

 Along with funding support to the CR organization, IPR is shared by both the companies
depending on the terms of agreement.

There could be many other terms/clauses in such CR agreements, which are not within the scope of this discussion.

Types of Contract Research (CR):

Frost & Sullivan in one of their studies on Indian R&D opportunities indicated following three models of contract research:

1. Joint research: Here two or more collaborators will work jointly

2. Collaborative research: In this type of research, scientists of different disciplines work together on a project e.g. Ranbaxy has recently entered into a collaborative research program with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) or collaboration of Ranbaxy to develop an anti-malarial NCE Rbx 11160 with Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), Geneva.

3. Complete outsourcing: When an altogether different research organization is assigned a research project by another organization. Some Indian research based pharmaceutical companies have already got engaged in these types contract research activities. The market of contract research is expected to grow much faster in the near future.

India – an attractive contract research destination:

A global survey done by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) couple of years ago on the preferred centres for overseas contract research, published as follows:

• 39% preference for China

• 28% preference for India

Attractiveness as preferred contract research center was based on the following criteria:

• A place where companies can tap into existing networks of scientific and technical expertise

• Has good links to academic research facilities

• Provides an environment where innovation is supported and easy to commercialize.

Many global pharmaceutical companies believe that China scores over India on the third point, as mentioned above.

Indian pharmaceutical companies have commenced targeting contract research opportunities:

Research based Indian pharmaceutical companies companies like, Piramal Healthcare, Ranbaxy, DRL, Zydus Cadilla, Glenmark etc are now actively targeting international companies for contract research in custom synthesis, medicinal chemistry and clinical studies.

A medium-sized pharma company Shasun Chemicals and Drugs has been reported to have defined its business as an “integrated research and manufacturing solutions provider”. Similarly Divi’s Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company of similar size has collaborated with global multinational companies for both custom synthesis and contract research projects.

Some international CROs, like Quintiles have its establishments in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Mumbai with great expectations and a robust business model.

New contract research opportunities in Biopharmaceuticals:

Besides pure pharmaceutical companies, an emerging opportunity is seen within the biotech companies in India, which are mostly engaged in a contract model. Novartis has inked a three year deal with Synergene (Biocon) for various research projects primarily in the early stages of development in cardiovascular and oncology therapy areas.

Likewise, Reliance Life Sciences are involved in chemistry, biology and contract clinical research activities.

Another research process outsourcing company, Avesthagen is engaged in collaborative research in metabolics, proteomics, genomics and sequencing. The company shares the IPR with the collaborators.

Jubilant Biosys of India, which has already partnered in a drug development deal with Eli Lilly has recently entered into another research and development deal with AstraZeneca, estimated to be worth up to US$220 million. This research collaboration will be funded by AstraZeneca for five years and they will own the patent of any neuroscience molecule that will come out of this collaborative agreement.

Contract research – a lucrative business model:

A UBS Warburg study indicated that around 20% to 25% of R&D investments in the US go towards contract research. This percentage is expected to increase as the pressure to contain R&D expenses keeps mounting, especially in the US and EU.

Currently the cost of bringing an NCE/NME to market from its R&D stage is estimated to be around US$ 1.7 billion. Across the world efforts are being generated to bring down these mounting expenses towards R&D.

Many experts believe that cost of innovation in India will be almost half of what it will be in the US and EU. A report from Zinnov Management Consulting forecasts that towards outsourcing by the global pharmaceutical companies, India has the potential to earn about US$2.5 billion by 2012.

Conclusion:

Currently, within CR space India is globally considered as a more mature venue for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. However, in biotech space China is ahead of India. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Divi’s Laboratories, Avesthagen, Ranbaxy, Synergene, Jubilant Biosys, Reliance Life Science, DRL, Zydus Cadilla, Glenmark and Piramal Healthcare could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC)to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

As I said earlier quoting Korn/Ferry that in the CR space China’s infrastructure is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to derive maximum benefits of the globalization process in the country.

Prudent policy reforms and other measures as expected from the new UPA Government will hopefully help bridging the gap between the Chinese and Indian pharmaceutical industry in the space of overall CR business including biotechnology, as Indian R&D based pharmaceutical companies will start realizing and encashing the potential of this important business model.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the report actually says:

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

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

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

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

B. Government of India (GoI):

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

What the report actually says:

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

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

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

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

What the report actually says:

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

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

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical industry:

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

What the report says:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

By Tapan Ray

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

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 13, 2009, The Guardian reported that Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced some significant changes to the way his company will operate in the developing countries of the world.

GSK, as Witty said, will:

• “Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle- income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a “patent pool”, so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.”

Quoting Andrew Witty, The Guardian reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.

“We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it’s likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that’s what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries,” Witty envisioned.

“I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns,” he expressed Knowing full well that his comments will be considered as quite radical within the global pharmaceutical Industry.

The unorthodox young CEO of GSK continued, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress.”

Definition of ‘Patent Pool’:

The ‘Patent Pool’ is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pool’, as considered by its proponent, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement.

The rationale for ‘Patent Pool’ system:

Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practised within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve their access to many more developing countries of the world.

GSK appears to have kick started the process:

Andrew witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pool’:

Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pool’ concept:

It has been reported, from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ worked out that the start-up costs of a ‘Patent Pool’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.

Moreover, various types of litigations, related to patents, which we are currently witnessing within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Conclusion:

The initiative to create a ‘Patent Pool’ system in the global pharmaceutical industry, especially for the diseases of the poor, as enunciated by the CEO of GSK, is indeed a path breaking one. Such initiatives are likely to have very positive contribution in solving the problem of access to affordable medicines, especially in the developing world.

In fact, the Council of Science and Industrial Research of the Government of India, lead by its Director General, Dr. Samir Brahmachari has already undertaken similar initiatives in the country where global experts including academia are actively participating.

Though ‘Patent Pool’ is still an untested model in the global pharmaceutical industry, the recent announcement of GSK towards this direction does appear to offer a realistic and practical approach to address the critical global issue of improving ‘access to affordable innovative modern medicines’ to a vast majority of population in the developing countries of the world.

By Tapan Ray

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

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Posted on by
Reply
A brief background:
In June 19, 1970 an International patent law treaty was signed in Washington, initially with 18 contracting states. This treaty is called ‘The Patent Co-operation Treaty’ (PCT), which came into force on January 24, 1978 and was subsequently amended in 1979 and further modified in 1984 and 2001.In August, 1998 India joined the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) by acceding to the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property. As on March 7, 2009, 141 states including all major industrialized countries, are signatories to the PCT.

PCT system, as we know, facilitates filing of patent applications under one roof with simpler procedure for search and examination of applications. This allows innovators of a PCT member country to obtain the effect of patent filings in any or all of the PCT countries.

The procedure currently followed by PCT is as follows:

“A single filing of an international application is made with a ‘Receiving Office’ (RO) in one language. It then results in a ‘search’ performed by an ‘International Searching Authority’ (ISA), accompanied by a written opinion regarding ‘patentability’ of the invention, which is the subject of application. This is optionally followed by a preliminary examination performed by an ‘International Preliminary Examination Authority’ (IPEA). Finally, the examination (if provided by national law) and grant procedures are handled by the relevant national and regional authorities.”

Currently the PCT does not lead to the grant of an ‘International Patent’.

WIPO recognizes Indian Patent Office as an ISA and IPEA:

Recently under PCT, ‘The World Intellectual Property Organization’ (WIPO) has recognized the Indian Patent Office (IPO) as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

Besides India, other countries which have this recognition are Austria, Australia, Canada, China, EU, Spain, Finland, Japan, Korea, Russia, Sweden and the USA.

This recognition will help India the following ways:

1. Through PCT route India will now receive international patent applications from WIPO for search and preliminary examinations. This will enable IPO to generate revenue in form of fees paid to ISA and IPEA.

2. This recognition would help the innovators of the country to avail patentability search, obtain IPER and written opinions much faster and at a cheaper rate.

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Recently a document has been published by WIPO for the meeting of PCT working group scheduled at Geneva from May 4 to May 8, 2009. The outcome of the meeting is not known to me, as yet. This document includes a proposal from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO) for having a relook at the existing international patent system. This relook and discussion could translate into development of an entirely new Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which perhaps would be termed as PCT II.

The key feature of the proposed PCT II is that all patent applications, which will successfully pass through scrutiny of both international/national processing system would automatically receive patent grants in all the member countries.

While discussing this process within the PCT working group, it is anticipated that following two key issues will crop up for an intense debate:

1. Harmonization
2. Sovereignty

However, many feel that an appropriate protocol system could be put in place to take care of both these concerns, where after release of an affirmative international patentability report, each member country will be given certain period of time to refuse the grant patent in that particular country, clearly specifying the reasons for the same.

In true sense it may not mean grant of a global patent, but definitely could be considered as a bold step towards that direction. PCT II, if sees the light of the day, is expected to create a much easier type of patent granting procedure.

To make it effective, existing PCT structure will need to undergo some significant changes. The new structure is expected to ensure a very high quality output. The member countries, who will work in tandem, should find the new procedures and systems much more user-friendly and at the same time efficient in ensuring comprehensive search between multiple offices that incorporate prior art submissions by the applicants and third parties.

However, if PCT II gets accepted in principle by all the member countries, a detail mechanism to effectively operate such a complex system to be worked out with great precision, ensuring full satisfaction to all concerned.

In India, this new development will certainly be examined with a ‘tooth comb’ and rightly so. It is expected that all pros and cons will be carefully examined by the country, getting fully involved in this international debate, before arriving at a final decision. On the face of it ‘PCT II’ appears to be a novel concept, which deserves due consideration by all the stakeholders and in no case to be summarily brushed aside following the shrill voices of some skeptics.

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.

Revised Mashelkar Committee Report recommends inclusion of ‘incremental innovation’ under patentability criteria.

Posted on by
Reply
In 2006, the Government of India appointed a Technical Expert Group (TEG) chaired by the eminent scientist and the then Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, with the following terms of reference:1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.The TEG submitted its report to the Government on December 29, 2006. However, due to some ‘technical inaccuracies’ Dr. Mashelkar sought the permission of the Government on February 19, 2007 “to re-examine and resubmit the report, which meets with the requirements of the highest standards’’. This request was acceded by the Government on 7th of March 2007.

Much water had flown down the bridge thereafter, which we shall not deliberate upon here. Ultimately in March 2009 the TEG submitted its revised report.

In terms of overall content, the revised report is similar to the previous one, which was withdrawn earlier.

Conclusions of the revised TEG report:

The conclusions of the report against the terms of references given to the TEG are as follows:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology’. However, every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India. Further, every effort should be made to prevent the grant of frivolous patents and ‘ever-greening’. Detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

2. “Excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of TRIPS Agreement.”

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

It is indeed interesting to note that under Para 5.11 the TEG says, “the committee was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself into these issues.”

However, in Para 5.32 the report observes the following:

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

With this observation, TEG has also clarified the scope of section 3(d), indirectly though.

The report further recommends, “detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

What next?

It will be interesting to watch what the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) does with this revised report. As we have seen that the report categorically states:

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

And

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

Therefore, taking these two recommendations together my questions are as follows:

1. Will the DIPP conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant?

2. If so, will the DIPP recommend an amendment of this section sooner to encourage ‘incremental innovation’ within the country?

3. If not, will the DIPP clarify now the need, purpose and the importance of this report?

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.

Unlike China, IPR issues in India are being hijacked by the issue of ‘Access to Affordable Modern Medicines’.

Posted on by
Reply

‘Incremental innovation’, related to the pharmaceutical industry, has become a point of raging debate in India. Over a period of time ‘not really a breakthrough’ but ‘incremental inventive steps’ to discover New Chemical Entities (NCE), which would offer significant benefits to the patients, are being considered as of critical importance by the stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry, the world over. Such types of innovations are being termed as ‘incremental innovation’ , with underlying implied meaning of ‘frivolous’ nature of the innovation, to some section of people.

Most innovations in the pharmaceutical industry have always been ‘incremental’ in nature:

We have been observing such ‘incremental innovation’ from ‘Penicillin era‘ with different derivatives of penicillins, right through to ‘Quinolone era’ with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin etc to ‘H2 receptor antagonists’ with cimetidine, ranitidine, roxatidine to ‘proton pump inhibitors’ with omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole etc.

We see such important ‘incremental innovation’ with many successful drugs across various disease areas. How many different varieties of ‘statins’, ‘betablockers’, ‘ace inhitors’ etc we have been prescribed by the medical profession over so many years with amazing results? This trend continues to offer better and better treatment options to the patients through the medical profession, across the world.

Unfortunately ‘incremental innovation’ has become a contentious issue in India. Section 3d of the Indian Patents Act 2005 has become a key barrier to continue with this process of innovation, in search of better and better medicines. ‘Breakthrough innovations’, which are very important though, are not as frequent in the pharmaceuticals industry, just as in many other industries, including Information technology (IT). ‘Incremental innovations’ are, therefore, the bedrock to improve the types of medications to treat various disease conditions.

A quick comparison with China:

As reported by the Department of Commerce of the U.S Government, domestic consumption of medicines both in India and China is around 70% of the domestic productions of the respective countries. These medicines are available at a very reasonable price to the local populations.

Fuelled by strong domestic demand, coupled with exports to other countries, the pharmaceutical industry in both India and China are showing impressive growth, China being ahead of India in both pace of growth, as well as in terms of market size.

Why some key IPR issues, like ‘incremental innovation’, are facing stiff opposition in India when it is not so in China?

Intellectual Property Regime (IPR) is now in place in both the countries. However, criteria of ‘patentability’, as mentioned above, still remain a contentious issue in India. The issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ is being unnecessarily dragged into the discussion of IPR related issues, where resolution of each of these two issues warrants totally different types of approaches.

The issue of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of medicines must be addressed with all earnestness by all concerned, but surely, I repeat, with a different kind and sets of measures. Mixing IPR issues with the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ sends a wrong message, which would mean that IPR is the cause of this problem in India or in other words, IPR has aggravated this problem since January 1, 2005, the day the new Patents Act came into force in India. This definitely is not the reality in our country.

As I have been saying repeatedly, why then from 1972 to 2005, when pharmaceutical products patents were not being granted, the access to affordable modern medicines were denied to 650 million population of India? The solution to this problem, in my view, lies in effectively addressing the issue of healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and healthcare financing (health insurance for all strata of society) with an integrated approach and in tandem through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

Is this issue cropping up because of intense pressure and public opinion created by over 20,000 small to medium scale producers of generic drugs, who have grown within the industry in a much protected environment created by the Government of India and had thrived in business by introducing copycat versions of innovators drugs for over three decades, during the old paradigm?

Large Indian companies are by and large in favour of IPR:

The large Indian Pharmaceutical Companies like Piramal Healthcare support the new IPR regime, envisaging the benefits that it will bring to the country in general and the domestic pharmaceutical industry in particular, in medium to longer term. These benefits will not only come from the fruits of their R&D initiatives, but also through various emerging opportunities of business collaboration in areas of their respective strengths, with the Multi National Corporations (MNCs) across the globe.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry, which had registered a double digit CAGR growth rate over the past decade, is poised to record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion by 2015, as reported by Mckinsey & Co. Even at that time patented products are expected to contribute just about 10% of the total market and balance 90% of the market will continue to be dominated by low cost branded generic drugs.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has potential to emerge as an international force to reckon with. But will it..?

Within knowledge based industries, after meteoric success of the Information Technology (IT), Indian pharmaceutical industry armed with its fast growing biotech sector, has all the potential to be a major global force to reckon with. It just needs to foster the culture of innovation. One will feel happy to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India has started taking, at least, some initiatives towards this direction.

The key issues of ‘patentability‘ together with lack of a strong regulatory framework for effective patent enforcement and data protection are becoming barriers to development of international collaboration in the space of pharmaceutical research and development in India.

Why is China different?

From the beginning of 90’s China initiated its reform processes in the IPR area, which may not be perfect though, as yet. However, since 1998 with stricter regulations on pharmaceutical manufacturing and introducing Drug Management Law, China to a great extent regulated entry of ‘fringe players’ in the pharmaceutical business. It enacted TRIPS compliant patent laws in 2002, extending pharmaceutical product patent for 20 years and regulatory data protection (RDP) for 6 years.

Currently China is focusing more on biotech drugs and has wheezed past India in terms of success in this important sector of the healthcare industry, though they have still miles to go to catch up with the developed world in this space. With the creation of innovative environment within the country, China is fast getting international recognition and collaboration, in genomic and stem cell research and technology.

In the pharmaceutical sector also China has brought in significant regulatory reforms since 2001. Because of its stronger IPR regime than India and other important regulatory reform measures that the country has been undertaking, China is racing past India to become one of the largest markets of the global pharmaceutical industry. In this process, China is attracting far more foreign direct investments (FDI) than India, almost in all verticals of the pharmaceutical industry, from R&D, clinical trials to contract research and manufacturing.

Where India scores over China:

Quality of co-operation and relationship between global pharmaceutical companies and the domestic Chinese pharmaceutical industry is believed to be not as good as what is prevailing in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. There are many reasons for such difference, language being the key reason. In China, English is still not a very popular language, in sharp contrast to India. This limits effective human interaction with the foreigners in China. In the area of, especially, pharmaceutical chemistry, Indian scientists are considered to have a clear edge over their Chinese counterparts.

Chinese policy makers are gradually trying to shed off their protectionist’s attitude in the globalization process.

Steps taken by China to encourage innovation are far more encouraging than what is being done in India. Global pharmaceutical companies are finding China more attractive than India to expand their business. As the saying goes, ‘proof of pudding is in its eating’, predominantly because of this reason, FDI for the pharmaceutical sector is coming more in China than in India.

Instead of creating drivers, is India creating barriers to innovation?

It is indeed unfortunate that the Indian law differentiates innovation based on its types and denies grant of patent for ‘incremental innovation’, which is the bedrock of progress for the pharmaceutical industry. For this reason section 3d of Indian Patent Acts 2005 does not consider the ‘salts, esters, polymorphs and other derivatives of known substances unless it can be shown that they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’, patentable.

Strong propaganda campaign unleashed by the vested interests alleging rampant violation of section 3d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) is another case in point. Interestingly the aggrieved parties decided to fight this issue through media, avoiding the legal route for redressal of their grievances. They on record cited a hilarious reason for the same that no lawyer in India is coming forward to fight their cases, at the behest of the MNCs.

The way forward:

To encourage innovation within a TRIPS compliant IPR regime, as one sees in China,
stereotyping innovations as ‘breakthrough’ or ‘incremental’ will dampen the spirit of innovative culture within the country. Inventive steps in an innovative process of a pharmaceutical product are directed to satisfy some important needs of the patients. As I said before, most innovations, which are an integral part of the progress of this industry, have been ‘incremental’ in nature. Thus ignoring ‘incremental innovation’ in India could be counterproductive, in more than one way.

Investments required towards R&D that a ‘breakthrough type’ innovation would warrant are very high. Indian pharmaceutical industry will have a serious limitation in that direction. The path of ‘incremental innovation’ ably backed by a strong IPR enforcement process, would, I reckon, be the best way forward for the Indian players to compete effectively with global innovator companies, leave aside their Chinese counterparts.

Any innovation, which has gone through inventive steps, even if it is ‘incremental’ in nature, should not be considered ‘frivolous’. It demeans the very process of innovation.

Raising various public sensitive and emotive issues on product patents and combining it with issues of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of modern medicines, some powerful lobby of vested interests may seriously retard the progress of India. The Government of India should recognize that it will very adversely affect the country in its pursuit of excellence in the field of research and development, in medium to longer term.

Such emotive misconceptions are compelling the policy makers to divert their attention from the root cause, which I have enumerated above, of the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to the vast majority of Indian population.

In my earlier article, I suggested a public private partnership (PPP) model to address these critical healthcare issues. Examples of such PPP are already there in India in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Astute policy makers of the Government of India, I am sure, will soon realize that encouraging, rewarding and protecting patents through a robust TRIPS compliant IPR framework would enable India to place itself ahead of China, as the choicest destination for the global pharmaceutical industry.

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.