Tag Archives: PCT

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

Posted on by
Reply

Currently both China and India, the two most populous nations of the world are also the front runners of the global economy in terms of the pace of GDP growth. The economies of the two countries are greatly influenced by their respective sociopolitical environment. However, the economy of China is more robust ranking second in the world, against eleven of India. The dragon is indeed breathing fire.

A comparison of the economy of the two countries, as reported by ‘MapsofIndia.com’ updated in July 2011, is as follows:

Facts India China
GDP US$1.31 trillion US$ 4.90 trillion
GDP growth 8.90% 9.60%
Per capital GDP US$1124 US$7,518
Inflation 7.48 % 5.1%
Labor Force 467 million 813.5 million
Unemployment 9.4 % 4.20 %
Fiscal Deficit 5.5% 21.5%
Foreign Direct Investment US$12.40 billion US$9.7 billion
Gold Reserves 15% 11%
Foreign Exchange Reserves US$2.41 billion US$2.65 trillion
World Prosperity Index 88th Position 58th Position
Mobile Users 842 million 687.71 million
Internet Users 123.16 million 81 million.

Global pharmaceutical ranking:

As reported by IMS, in global ranking, China was ninth largest pharmaceutical market against thirteenth of India in 2004, became  fifth largest in 2009 against thirteenth of India and is expected to be the third largest by 2014 against tenth of India, growing at a much faster pace.

2004 Rank

2009 Rank

2014 Rank
1 United States 1 United States 1 United States
2 Japan 2 Japan 2 Japan
3 France 3 Germany 3 China
4 Germany 4 France 4 Germany
5 Italy 5 China 5 France
6 United Kingdom 6 Italy 6 Brazil
7 Canada 7 Canada 7 Italy
8 Spain 8 Spain 8 Canada
9 China 9 United Kingdom 9 Spain
10 Brazil 10 Brazil 10 India
11 Mexico 11 Russia 11 Russia
12 Australia 12 Mexico 12 United Kingdom
13 South Korea 13 India 13 Venezuela
14 India 14 Australia 14 Turkey
15 Netherlands 15 Turkey 15 South Korea

Source: IMS Health MIDAS, Market Prognosis September 2010; Market size ranking in constant US$

Healthcare coverage:

In China, out of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million are covered by health insurance, another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance.

Against these statistics of China, in India total number of population who have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.1% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China in this respect mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure and regulatory challenges by China.

Commitment to globalization:

A very high level of commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional global hub for pharmaceutical R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is now paying rich dividends.

Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India (GoI) also expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved with just good intent of investments of couple of million US$ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, as announced by the DoP earlier.

A strong commitment of the GoI to hasten regulatory reform processes with visible action will be the deciding success factor. IPR regime in the pharmaceutical industry has been put in place, but an appropriate to foster innovation in the country is yet to be created.

Healthcare Infrastructure:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that China’s infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to accelerate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country.

It has been reported that China has not only better healthcare infrastructure as compared to India, but they are also more open  to of foreign trade and investments to improve these further in their country.

R&D Comparison:

Talent Pool and no. of Patents granted:

According to WIPO, China has better R&D talent pool and grants more patent per year than India as follows:

India

China
R&D Talent Pool

45,000

56,000
Patents Granted (2008-09)*

16,061

48,814

*Patent Granrted in India during 2009-10:6168

Source: FE Bureau / WIPO / IPO

Scientific Publications:

India also lags behind China in the number of scientific publications as follows:

Pre 2000 (A)

Post 2000 (B)

B/A*
India 3,04,737 4,98,394 1.64
China 2,30,154 19,94,706 8.67

*Multiple of Post-2000 over Pre 2000

Between pre-2000 and post-2000 era, China’s count of scientific publications rose more than eight times compared to India’s 1.6 times. (Source: Search on Scopus Sciverse (Database from Elsevier)

Based on ‘WIPO PCT’ applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China.

Biology Research:

China is taking faster strides in the Biology Research area as follows:

INDIA

CHINA
  1. Only about five companies with proven skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research focused on bioinformatics and bio-chips

3. Limited biology talent pool owing to historic focus on generics1. Established skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research in stem cells, bio-chips, and gene sequencing

3. Expanding biology talent pool

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Clinical trials:

In the area of clinical trial, though by amending  the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in line with ICH GCP, India has already put in place the Good Clinical Practices (GCP), China has, on the other hand, brought its GCP, GLP, and GMP standards in line with ICH guidelines.

May be because of all these reasons ‘A.T. Kearney’ in its ‘Country Attractiveness Index’ (CAI) for clinical trials has given 6.10 to China against 5.58 to India.

BCG compared India with China in the Clinical Trial space as follows:

INDIA

CHINA
1. Experienced CROs with full service range and output of similar quality to that of developed markets.

3. Limited FDA approved hospitals

4. Shorter trial approval times than in China

5.Uneven infrastructure and shortage of clinical research assistants

  1. Experienced CROs and growing vendor pool providing full spectrum of services
  2. High quality FDA-approved hospitals
  3. Low-cost and efficient enrollment compared to the US and Europe
  4. Trial approvals lengthy and complex

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Despite all these, both India and China pose challenges to both global and the local pharmaceutical players in dealing with subjects of wide cultural diversity within the country besides illiteracy and poverty. Many cases of conflict between ethics and natural justice have been reported from both countries during recruiting process of the subjects for clinical trial.

Pharmaceutical outsourcing:

In terms of attractiveness for outsourcing among the emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, India and China are outpacing others with their cutting edge offering of high quality services at lower cost together with large pool of skilled manpower.

India has the potential to be a contender of supremacy for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types with all the required success ingredients. However, putting these ingredients together for effective use to make it happen has indeed become a real challenge.

On the other hand China is racing ahead to effectively avail the global opportunities and in that process fast distancing itself from India, widening the competitive performance gap between the two countries. Brain drain:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Where India is a high flier:

Chemistry Research:

India is globally considered as a more mature place for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Aurigene, Advinus, Divis Lab and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

BCG report, ‘Looking Eastward’ compared India with China in the Chemistry Research area as follows:

INDIA

CHINA
  1. Large pool of vendors with full services and track record of strong capabilities

2. Generally better IP protection than in China

3. Trend toward project based alliances and emerging build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts

4. Vast pool of skilled and low cost chemists

  1. Capabilities residing mostly with government institutes; only a few small private companies with a track record
  2. Established basic chemistry skills moving to more complex offerings, but no end to end capabilities
  3. Large and growing pool of raw talent, but limited English language skills still an issue

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Earlier reform in China: It is important to mention that healthcare reform process started much earlier in China. The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that time China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centers, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on economies of scale, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many others, will vindicate this point.

On other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20 percent of global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Even in ANDA and DMF filings, India is currently ahead of China. 

Conclusion:

While comparing India with China one should also take into consideration that not only the sociopolitical structure of India and China are quite different, but the difference exists also in their commerce and industry related political decision making process.

Moreover, the average age of Chinese population is much more than Indians and continues to increase rapidly. The factor of aging population may have an adverse impact on the overall productivity of their people in the coming years constraining the economic growth of China. In contrast, the percentage of young working people in India is expected to keep increasing through 2030, offering a very critical  demographic advantage to the country in the years ahead.

Though China will continue to have aging population and India the younger ones, both countries will have to deploy greater resources to cater to the growing healthcare needs for altogether different reasons. The net gainer will indeed be the pharmaceutical industry in both the countries.

That said, just a wishful thinking of the Government of India, sans expeditious and prudent regulatory and other related policy reforms, will helplessly make India watching the gap between the pharmaceutical industry of the two countries fast widening, making the dragon keep breathing fire, unabated.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Recent 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.

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.