Tag Archives: Product

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) and its need in India: The Myth versus Reality

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

Some in India feel that Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), is a deliberate attempt by the innovator companies to delay the launch of the generic equivalent of patented products in India, as long as they possibly can.

Thus they feel that why should one re-invent the wheel? Why should the generic pharmaceutical companies be not allowed to continue with the current requirement by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to establish only the ‘bio-equivalence of an innovator drug to get the marketing approval of the generic equivalent in India?

RDP will effect export in non-regulated markets:
They further argue that India currently exports its pharmaceutical products to around 50 non-regulated markets of the world. Thus the enforcement of RDP would jeopardize Indian Pharmaceutical exports in those countries affecting the economy of the country.

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

Regarding Article 39(3) of TRIPS, which indicates protection of regulatory data against “disclosure” and “unfair-commercial use”, this group opines that this is a non-binding Article of TRIPS, neither does it specify any timeline to protect such data. Moreover, they feel, that only the “undisclosed data” may be protected and the data already “disclosed” ‘need not to be protected’.

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

The proponents of this interpretation believe that RDP is just an attempt to “evergreen” a patent, extending the patent life of a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or (NME) beyond 20 years.

THE REALITY:

Just Like Patents, Regulatory Data need to be protected to encourage innovation in India:

This group feels that generation of exhaustive regulatory data entails very significant investment in terms of money, energy and time. These are very high risk investments as approximately one in 5000 molecules researched will eventually see the light of the day in the market place. It is worth noting that clinical development of an NCE/NME costs around 70%, while the cost of discovery of the same NCE/NME is around 30% of the total costs. It is estimated that the entire process of drug development from discovery to market takes an average of 10 years and costs on an average U.S.$ 1.7 Billion in the developed markets of the world.

Since such voluminous regulatory data are not only costly and time consuming but also proprietary in nature, these need to be protected by the regulators. Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), therefore, has been widely recognized as an integral part of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) also recognizes the “protection of undisclosed information” as being an Intellectual Property, which needs to be protected.

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

“Members, when requiring, as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.”

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) mentioned in Article 39.3 of TRIPS are commonly referred to as “Data Exclusivity” in the U.S. and “Data Protection” or “Regulatory Data Protection” in the European Union (EU). These are all the very same.

RDP is an independent IPR; and should not be confused with other IPRs, such as patents:

Bringing an NCE/NME to the market involves two critical steps:

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

The drug discovery right of the originator is protected in the form of a patent.

2. Drug development:

The innovator will require generating intensive, time consuming and expensive pre-clinical and
clinical data to meet the regulatory needs for bringing the new drug to the market. Such data
needs to be protected by the drug regulators.

It is understood that both the above steps are absolutely necessary to meet the unmet needs of the patients. The civil society gets the benefits of the new drugs only after these two steps are successfully completed.

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, RDP is clearly justifiable on the following grounds:

Generation of Data by the originator consists of “considerable efforts”. Submission of clinical data is a statutory regulatory requirement. Were it not for the obligation to provide these data to the Government, such data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation on the part of the Government as a ‘gate keeper’ to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure. Any failure by the Government to provide required protection to the data could lead to “unfair commercial use”.

Since such data are collected through various phases of clinical evaluation, involving considerable costs, time and energy, these are immensely valuable to the originator and need to be adequately protected by the drug regulators.

As these data are proprietary in nature, any access or permissibility for use of such data by the second applicant without concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.

Given the imbalance between the costs to the originator of getting marketing approval for its product and the costs of the ‘copy cat’ coming to the market, the research based industry will not have adequate incentive without RDP to continue to get engaged in important R&D activities. In that scenario, newer and better drugs, particularly for untreated and under-treated medical conditions will not be available to the patients.

Without RDP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair, commercial disadvantage when compared to their generic competitors, who do not incur similar costs of meeting the mandatory requirements of drug regulatory authorities for marketing approval of the drug.

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

RDP will not affect exports of Indian pharmaceutical products to the non-regulated markets:

This is because RDP deals with marketing of products patented in India within the territory of India. RDP will in no way affect the ability of any generic manufacturer either to produce the bulk drug active or to formulate its dosage forms for exports in the non-regulated markets, as long as the product is not sold within the territory of India for which both the patent and RDP will be valid.

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), lack of RDP in India is the primary reason why India ranks only 9th (compared to China which ranks 2nd), in funding given by NIH outside U.S.A.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted significance of Regulatory Data Protection, as below:

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

RDP – The International Scenario:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of RDP.

Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the laws related to RDP, there is however a common principle that is followed. The laws generally specify the conditions under which Regulatory Data Protection can be sought and the period for which the “originator” can enjoy the exclusivity after the marketing approval is granted in the country. The period of RDP is typically between 5 – 10 years.

As per an article titled “Complying with Article 39.3 of TRIPs… A Myth or Evolving Reality” by Dr. Prabuddha Ganguli, around sixty nations around the world including China follow RDP in their respective countries.

RDP and the generics:

Regarding the arguments that RDP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, resulting in the erosion of generics market. This argument is based on invalid assumptions. The following facts will prove the irrelevance of these arguments propounded by the domestic generic lobby:

1. Data Protection refers only to new products registered/patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

2. U.S.A. is an outstanding example which shows that research based industry and generic industry can co-exist, giving dual benefits of innovative medicines and cheaper copies of off-patent medicines to the general public.

3. More the patented medicines, more will be generic drugs after expiry of their patents.

4. In the U.S.A. which has a long standing Data Protection (Exclusivity) regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at nearly half of all the prescriptions.

5. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984, which provided for a 5 year period of Data Protection, there has been a spurt of development of new drugs as also entry of off-patent generics into the US market.

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and RDP will run concurrently. The ground reality will be that innovator companies will launch their products in India within as short a time gap as possible from the launch of those products anywhere in the world. The period between introduction of new drugs elsewhere and their introduction in India has been continuously shrinking. The range of such period between 1965 and 1988 was 4 years to 13 years. The period during 1990 to 1999 ranges between 0.25 year and less than 2 years.

During the debate on Data Protection it is asserted in some quarters that RDP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not, by any means. Fundamentally, the two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. RDP cannot extend the length of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, RDP protects invaluable clinical dossier submitted to the drugs regulatory authority, from unfair commercial use and disclosure. The duration of RDP, as stated above, is typically half or less of the product patent life.

Conclusions:

In my view RDP will benefit the pharmaceutical innovation eco system India, as it has done to many other countries. Hence India should implement RDP without further delay. It will be reasonable to have a provision of at least 5 years of RDP from the date of marketing approval in India, on the same lines as China.

RDP should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to bring India into conformity with its international legal obligations and with the practices of other members of the WTO from both the developed and developing nations of the world.

These provisions, in my view, will go a long way in sending a very positive signal to the international community as well as to our own research based pharmaceutical companies to accelerate investment in this vital sector making India emerge as a global powerhouse in pharmaceuticals, 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.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) and its need in India: The Myth versus Reality

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

Some in India feel that Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), is a deliberate attempt by the innovator companies to delay the launch of the generic equivalent of patented products in India, as long as they possibly can.

Thus they feel that why should one re-invent the wheel? Why should the generic pharmaceutical companies be not allowed to continue with the current requirement by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to establish only the ‘bio-equivalence of an innovator drug to get the marketing approval of the generic equivalent in India?

RDP will effect export in non-regulated markets:
They further argue that India currently exports its pharmaceutical products to around 50 non-regulated markets of the world. Thus the enforcement of RDP would jeopardize Indian Pharmaceutical exports in those countries affecting the economy of the country.

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

Regarding Article 39(3) of TRIPS, which indicates protection of regulatory data against “disclosure” and “unfair-commercial use”, this group opines that this is a non-binding Article of TRIPS, neither does it specify any timeline to protect such data. Moreover, they feel, that only the “undisclosed data” may be protected and the data already “disclosed” ‘need not to be protected’.

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

The proponents of this interpretation believe that RDP is just an attempt to “evergreen” a patent, extending the patent life of a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or (NME) beyond 20 years.

THE REALITY:

Just Like Patents, Regulatory Data need to be protected to encourage innovation in India:

This group feels that generation of exhaustive regulatory data entails very significant investment in terms of money, energy and time. These are very high risk investments as approximately one in 5000 molecules researched will eventually see the light of the day in the market place. It is worth noting that clinical development of an NCE/NME costs around 70%, while the cost of discovery of the same NCE/NME is around 30% of the total costs. It is estimated that the entire process of drug development from discovery to market takes an average of 10 years and costs on an average U.S.$ 1.7 Billion in the developed markets of the world.

Since such voluminous regulatory data are not only costly and time consuming but also proprietary in nature, these need to be protected by the regulators. Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), therefore, has been widely recognized as an integral part of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) also recognizes the “protection of undisclosed information” as being an Intellectual Property, which needs to be protected.

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

“Members, when requiring, as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.”

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) mentioned in Article 39.3 of TRIPS are commonly referred to as “Data Exclusivity” in the U.S. and “Data Protection” or “Regulatory Data Protection” in the European Union (EU). These are all the very same.

RDP is an independent IPR; and should not be confused with other IPRs, such as patents:

Bringing an NCE/NME to the market involves two critical steps:

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

The drug discovery right of the originator is protected in the form of a patent.

2. Drug development:

The innovator will require generating intensive, time consuming and expensive pre-clinical and
clinical data to meet the regulatory needs for bringing the new drug to the market. Such data
needs to be protected by the drug regulators.

It is understood that both the above steps are absolutely necessary to meet the unmet needs of the patients. The civil society gets the benefits of the new drugs only after these two steps are successfully completed.

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, RDP is clearly justifiable on the following grounds:

Generation of Data by the originator consists of “considerable efforts”. Submission of clinical data is a statutory regulatory requirement. Were it not for the obligation to provide these data to the Government, such data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation on the part of the Government as a ‘gate keeper’ to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure. Any failure by the Government to provide required protection to the data could lead to “unfair commercial use”.

Since such data are collected through various phases of clinical evaluation, involving considerable costs, time and energy, these are immensely valuable to the originator and need to be adequately protected by the drug regulators.

As these data are proprietary in nature, any access or permissibility for use of such data by the second applicant without concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.

Given the imbalance between the costs to the originator of getting marketing approval for its product and the costs of the ‘copy cat’ coming to the market, the research based industry will not have adequate incentive without RDP to continue to get engaged in important R&D activities. In that scenario, newer and better drugs, particularly for untreated and under-treated medical conditions will not be available to the patients.

Without RDP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair, commercial disadvantage when compared to their generic competitors, who do not incur similar costs of meeting the mandatory requirements of drug regulatory authorities for marketing approval of the drug.

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

RDP will not affect exports of Indian pharmaceutical products to the non-regulated markets:

This is because RDP deals with marketing of products patented in India within the territory of India. RDP will in no way affect the ability of any generic manufacturer either to produce the bulk drug active or to formulate its dosage forms for exports in the non-regulated markets, as long as the product is not sold within the territory of India for which both the patent and RDP will be valid.

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), lack of RDP in India is the primary reason why India ranks only 9th (compared to China which ranks 2nd), in funding given by NIH outside U.S.A.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted significance of Regulatory Data Protection, as below:

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

RDP – The International Scenario:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of RDP.

Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the laws related to RDP, there is however a common principle that is followed. The laws generally specify the conditions under which Regulatory Data Protection can be sought and the period for which the “originator” can enjoy the exclusivity after the marketing approval is granted in the country. The period of RDP is typically between 5 – 10 years.

As per an article titled “Complying with Article 39.3 of TRIPs… A Myth or Evolving Reality” by Dr. Prabuddha Ganguli, around sixty nations around the world including China follow RDP in their respective countries.

RDP and the generics:

Regarding the arguments that RDP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, resulting in the erosion of generics market. This argument is based on invalid assumptions. The following facts will prove the irrelevance of these arguments propounded by the domestic generic lobby:

1. Data Protection refers only to new products registered/patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

2. U.S.A. is an outstanding example which shows that research based industry and generic industry can co-exist, giving dual benefits of innovative medicines and cheaper copies of off-patent medicines to the general public.

3. More the patented medicines, more will be generic drugs after expiry of their patents.

4. In the U.S.A. which has a long standing Data Protection (Exclusivity) regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at nearly half of all the prescriptions.

5. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984, which provided for a 5 year period of Data Protection, there has been a spurt of development of new drugs as also entry of off-patent generics into the US market.

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and RDP will run concurrently. The ground reality will be that innovator companies will launch their products in India within as short a time gap as possible from the launch of those products anywhere in the world. The period between introduction of new drugs elsewhere and their introduction in India has been continuously shrinking. The range of such period between 1965 and 1988 was 4 years to 13 years. The period during 1990 to 1999 ranges between 0.25 year and less than 2 years.

During the debate on Data Protection it is asserted in some quarters that RDP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not, by any means. Fundamentally, the two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. RDP cannot extend the length of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, RDP protects invaluable clinical dossier submitted to the drugs regulatory authority, from unfair commercial use and disclosure. The duration of RDP, as stated above, is typically half or less of the product patent life.

Conclusions:

In my view RDP will benefit the pharmaceutical innovation eco system India, as it has done to many other countries. Hence India should implement RDP without further delay. It will be reasonable to have a provision of at least 5 years of RDP from the date of marketing approval in India, on the same lines as China.

RDP should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to bring India into conformity with its international legal obligations and with the practices of other members of the WTO from both the developed and developing nations of the world.

These provisions, in my view, will go a long way in sending a very positive signal to the international community as well as to our own research based pharmaceutical companies to accelerate investment in this vital sector making India emerge as a global powerhouse in pharmaceuticals, 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.

Centralization of the system of issuing ‘Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product’ (CoPP) by the DCGI is a welcome step.

Posted on by
Reply
The ‘Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product’(CoPP), which is valid for two years, is issued by the drug regulatory authorities to a particular pharmaceutical product. CoPP is accepted as a proof of international quality by Latin America, Africa, CIS and other developing countries.
Why is this decision?

The decision of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to centralize the issue of CoPP stems from a request to this effect made by the World Health Organization (WHO).

It has been reported that WHO in April, 2009 informed the Ministry of Health of the Government of India that the organization takes objection in using WHO logo in the CoPP by the Indian exporters of pharmaceutical products as the WHO formats and guidelines are allegedly not properly adhered to by various local issuing authorities of CoPP, in India. The DCGI indicated that WHO specifically requested India that such an important documentation procedure should be controlled at the central drug regulatory authority level and hence is this decision.

Why is the criticism?

By the states:

However, the state drug authorities have expressed their unhappiness and even challenged the power of the DCGI to effect such changes. They feel that there will be revenue loss to the states for this procedural amendment. In addition, they argue that as the manufacturing license to the exporters are issued by the state drug authorities, the CoPP also is to be issued by the same authority, which they feel is an age old practice and works quite well.

By the exporters:

So far as the exporters are concerned, they feel that with the existing inadequate infrastructure available with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), effective implementation of the new system is not possible. This change, they apprehend, would result in unusual delay in issuing the certificate.

The latest status:

On October 13, 2009, the Madras High Court issued a stay order on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Drug Inspectors Association, against the directive of centralization of CoPP by the DCGI.

On October 15, 2009 the same Madras High Court acting on a petition of the Federation of South Indian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association issued an injunction, which will remain in force until further orders, staying the same order of the DCGI.

On October 20, 2009, Karnataka High Court issued yet another stay order, which will remain effective for a period of four weeks, suspending this new directive on CoPP.

This is the third stay order against the new centralized system of granting CoPP.

Conclusion:

Many stakeholders genuinely feel that this change will help strengthening the regulatory framework of the country and improving confidence level on the high quality standard of generic drugs manufactured in India within the world trading community with a positive impact on pharmaceutical exports. This will also enable the DCGI to provide up-to-date details on CoPP to the international regulators, as and when required. In the previous system, the DCGI feels, it used to be quite challenging to quickly compile such data to respond to any national and international request for the same. In the new system there will be one uniform format and the details of all CoPP with their expiry date will be available in the CDSCO website for greater transparency.

The infrastructural issue including the manpower need of the CDSCO to handle this new initiative is being addressed with adequate speed. Overall, this is indeed a laudable move to ensure uniform high quality standard for the pharmaceutical products made in India. Ministry of Health of the Government of India should be complimented for this important initiative.

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

The relevance of the Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act – the country needs all stakeholders’ open debate on the proposed bill.

Posted on by
Reply
The Bayh-Dole Act is an American legislation, which was originally sponsored by two US senators named Birch Bayh and Bob Dole. This Act deals with Intellectual Property (IP) arising out of US government funding. Bayh-Dole Act is also known as University and Small Business Patent Procedure Act. In December 12, 1980 this was enacted into a law by the US Congress.
What it does:
Under this Act, IP rights over government funded inventions for further development, license to other parties or direct commercialization are transferred to the universities and small businesses operating with government contracts. The government though retains its right to license the invention to any third party without any consent from the IP right owner or the licensee, if it feels that on a reasonable basis the public is being denied of the benefits of the invention.

The Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act:

The Utilization of the Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008, which has been formulated in line with the US Bayh-Dole Act, has already been approved by the Union Cabinet of India. This bill ensures both utilization and protection of the IP arising out of government funded research initiatives. Currently government funded academic institutions and research institutes cannot commercialize the inventions.

The proposed bill will not only allow them to patent such inventions but will also reward the inventors and the institutes with a share of its commercialization proceeds as per specific guidelines.
The bill has attracted a mixed response from the stake holders.

The relevance of Bayh-Dole Act in India:

Relevance of Indian version of the Bayh-Doll Bill in the post product patent regime in India is
significant. The core concept of the bill encourages innovation and ensures protection of patents and other forms of IP rights of the government funded R&D outcomes, where the owner of the intellectual property will be the government grant receipients or the government.

This bill is expected to offer to various research institutions, universities, small businesses and non-profit organizations, the IP rights on their inventions, resulted from the government funding. Overall environment towards innovation within the country is expected to get a boost in that process.

Is the ownership and protection of R&D a real remedy to make government academic institutions and universities self sustainable?

This is certainly not the only remedy, but an important one. This process will have significant potential to effectively facilitate technology transfer from government funded research laboratories or universities to the user industry to make these establishments self-sustainable.

What are the main implications of the bill if enacted in its current form?

Although the fine prints of the bill are not yet clearly known, the bill in its current form raises more questions than answers. Some of the concerns with the bill in its current form are as follows:

- This law could effectively transfer the decision making process about
publications of the research papers from the researchers and academia to
the bureaucrats in the government establishments, making the R&D
environment quite stifling for the researchers and the initiative
counterproductive.

- Academia at times will be compelled to incur significant expenditures
towards different types of IPR related litigation, which could have been
otherwise productively spent by these institutions towards research
initiatives.

- The learning and research may get transformed into another kind of
businesses activity, as such a law could change the research focus on to
the issues, which will be of greater commercial interest to various
industries and will offer immediate financial benefits to the
institutions. As a result vital non-commercial research, which could be of
critical interest to the nation as such, may take a back seat.

Conclusion:

The country will therefore need an extensive public debate on this bill, which has not taken place, as yet. The loose knots of the bill need to be tightened and the concerns of the stakeholders need to be adequately addressed before its enactment into a law.

By Tapan Ray

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

The Indian and Global Pharmaceutical Industry – A brief perspective to meet the challenge of change

Posted on by
Reply
A. INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE:
January 1, 2005 ushered in a paradigm shift in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry with the new product patent regime. Future of the industry, thereafter, will never be the same again as what we have been witnessing since 1970.

Gradually India, which was synonymous to cheaper copycat generic versions of products patented in most of the developed and emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, is expected to transit through a relatively ‘lull period’ for a shorter duration, before it starts helping to establish India as a force to reckon with, in the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) space of the world. We have seen some glimpses of the era to come by through initial basic research initiatives of companies like, Ranbaxy, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Piramal Life Science and Glenmark. All such companies are gradually transforming their R&D focus from reverse-engineering to developing new chemical/molecular entity (NCE/NME) or novel drug delivery systems (NDDS).

Opportunities during the paradigm shift:

The low cost base, large English speaking technical talent pool and development of world class R&D facilities of the country will play the role of catalysts in this fast changing process and throw open many new vistas of opportunities for the industry to cash on.

At the same time, generic companies will play even more important global role than ever before. Many of them will no longer remain a local branded generic or generic player, they will open their wings to fly down to the important global destinations. Some others will collaborate with multi-national pharmaceutical companies (MNCs) in their contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) initiatives. For others, the domestic pharmaceutical market will still remain big and lucrative enough to grow their business.

However, those companies, which will not be able to effectively combat the ‘challenge of rapid changes’ will either perish or be gobbled-up by the big fishes in the consolidation process of the local and global pharmaceutical industry.

Some perspectives:

Though the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry caters to around 70% of the requirements of pharmaceuticals of the nation, is highly fragmented. The industry manufactures 8% of the global production being the fourth largest producer of pharmaceuticals in terms of volume and employs over half a million people, mostly by around 300 large to medium sized companies in their local and global operations. Although around 6000 companies are engaged in manufacturing, many of them are third party manufacturers. Small manufacturers, who do not conform to ‘Schedule M’ requirements of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act will face or have already started facing trying times.

In terms of value, at present, India with around U.S 7.8 billion turnover, shares just around 2% of the global market with 14th in ranking. McKinsey forecasts that by 2015 India will record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion and will improve its rank in the global pharma league table to 10th.

Key markets of the domestic Indian companies:

Although India still remains one of the major markets of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies, many of them have already established their business in the US, Europe, Latin America, Russian Federation, Africa, Middle East, South East Asia and even in Japan and Australia.

Contribution of India business of different Indian pharmaceutical companies to their global business varies based on their respective business strategies, from 63% of Zydus Cadila to around 16% of DRL, in 2007-08.

US market followed by Europe, is the main revenue earner for most of the large Indian companies. For example Ranbaxy generated around 27% and 20% of their global turnover from the US and Europe, respectively in 2008.

However, for some other companies like Wockhardt, Europe is a more important market than USA. Wockhardt generated around 54% of their global turnover from Europe, in 2007.

Global market entry strategy:

Different Indian companies adopted different market entry and expansion strategies in their globalization process. However, these have been mostly driven mergers and acquisitions.

Is the Indian pharmaceutical industry facing a dire need for an image makeover?

Despite significant contribution of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to provide relatively cheaper generic medicines to address a wide array of ailments of a vast majority of the population, the image of the industry to its stakeholders or even to public at large, is far from satisfactory.

There are some key perceptual reasons for the same. Some of these are as follows:

1. Pharmaceutical industry is making exorbitant profits at the cost of the basic healthcare needs of the common man.

This perception gets further strengthened when, for example, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) demands crores of rupees from many pharmaceutical companies for overcharging to the patients and notices are served even attaching their properties to recover these dues.

2. The quality of all medicines is not reliable.

This gets vindicated when, for example, the government for its ‘Jan Aushadhi’ program refuses to buy from certain groups of licensed pharmaceutical manufacturers, predominantly on product quality parameters.

3. Some questions, do the pharmaceutical manufacturers in India manufacture medicines following the highest quality norms?

To answer to this question some people argue; if so, why will Indian manufacturers need stringent manufacturing quality certification of the drug regulators of the developed markets to export medicines in the those countries? Why the manufacturing quality certification given to these exporters by the Indian drug regulator is not accepted in those countries?

Moreover, when medicines are imported into India, we accept the quality norms of the drug regulators of the developed countries.

4. Some sections of the media highlight the alleged malpractices by the Indian pharmaceutical companies to promote their mediciness to the medical profession. Such alleged high expenditure towards product promotion is considered by many as avoidable wasteful expenses, the benefit of which can easily be passed on to the patients.

Indian pharmaceutical industry is yet to develop a uniform code of marketing practices, which will be applicable to all the pharmaceutical companies across the board and implement the same effectively, to address such allegations.

Multinational Companies – friends or foes?

To partly salvage the situation, at the same time, one notices open attempts are being made to project the multinational drug companies as demons, the exploiters with a suspicious agenda of thwarting the growth of the domestic companies. In such a scenario, it is indeed perplexing, when one sees the names of the Indian companies at the top of the NPPA lists who allegedly overcharged maximum amount of money to the common man.

What the industry should do jointly:

Under such sad circumstances, the entire industry should come together, take a hard look on itself first and extend its helping hands in public private partnership (PPP) initiatives for the benefit of the civil society.

Such PPP may not necessarily be charitable. It could focus on developing a robust healthcare financing model with industry expertise, for implementation with the government involvement for all strata of society. Or, for example, the industry should come out with a plan, which the US Pharmaceutical trade association – PhRMA has recently proposed to the Obama administration voluntarily on their ‘Medicare’ program, for the senior citizens of America.

For image makeover the name of the game is actual ‘demonstration’ of the good intent and NOT ‘pontification’ of what others should do, highlighting the identified loopholes in the government machineries.

B. GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE:

In the midst of the global financial meltdown, beginning 2009, no one is still able to fathom what impact, if at all, will it leave on to the global pharmaceutical industry.

In the most populous country of the world – China, in April 2009, the government unfolded the blueprints of new healthcare reform measures, covering the entire nation.

Similarly, in the oldest democracy and the richest country of the world – United States of America, President Barak Obama administration expressed their resolve to address important healthcare related issues, as an integral part of the economic reform of the country.

In other developed markets of the world like Europe and Japan intense cost containment pressure is in turn creating significant pricing pressure on pharmaceuticals, triggering the demand of greater use of cheaper generic formulations.

Financial meltdown though eroded the market capitalization of most of the companies; the growth of the global pharmaceutical industry remained unabated till 2008, albeit at a slower pace though. Many markets of the world witnessed a faster generic switch, fuelling higher volume growth of the generic segment of the industry.

Some perspectives:

In 2008 the global pharmaceutical market size was of U.S$ 780 billion, which is expected to grow to U.S$ 937 billion in 2012 registering a 5 year CAGR of around 5.5%. Sales worth U.S$ 253 billion came from just 100 blockbuster drugs, contributing around one third of the global pharmaceutical market.

USA with a retail revenue turnover of U.S$ 206 is the largest market of the world, though currently showing a sharp decline in its growth rate. The growth rate of the US is expected to drop further along with the patent expiry of other blockbuster drugs.

Just three countries of Europe, U.K, France and Germany contributed to 50% of pharmaceutical sales of entire Europe.

Doctors’ are no longer the sole decision maker to prescribe a medicinal product:

Just like in the US, one witnesses a change in the role of the medical professionals as a key decision maker to prescribe medicines for the patients in Europe, as well. More and more, payors like health insurance companies, NHS are assuming that role.

A shift from small molecule pharmaceuticals to large molecule biotech products:

As small molecule pharmaceuticals are coming under intense pricing pressure, the focus of new drug launches is shifting towards more expensive large molecule biotech drugs with much higher margins of profit increasing the treatment cost further.

The brighter side:

Growing middle class population with higher disposable income together with increase spending of the government towards healthcare, in most of these countries, are making the pharmaceutical industry grow at a much faster pace in the emerging markets like, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Mexico and Korea. However, the revenue and profit earned by the global companies from the developed markets are still far more than the emerging markets of the world.

Access to healthcare still remains a global issue:

Despite so much of progress of the global pharmaceutical industry, access to healthcare still remains an issue, besides others, even in some of the developed markets of the world. The waiting period of a patient just to get an appointment of the doctor is increasing fast. Even in the US about 47 million of US citizens still are not covered by insurance, besides many more of them who remain underinsured.

Global pharmaceutical industry is still considered a part of the problem:

Despite meeting the unmet needs of the patients through intensive research and development initiatives and various global access programs for the needy and the downtrodden, the civil society all over the world, including in the developed countries, still believes that the pharmaceutical industry is a part of the global healthcare problems, though relatively more in the developing and the least developed economies of the world. These perceptions are mainly due to high costs of patented drugs, high research expenditure for low value added drugs and seemingly unethical marketing practices of the industry across the board with varying degree.

Conclusion:

The pharmaceutical industry, the ultimate savior in the battle against disease, is now passing through a critical phase both locally and globally and both in terms of its image and capacity to deliver newer medicines ensuring their affordable access, the reason of which may vary from country to country.

Be that as it may, the industry has been making significant contribution to the humanity to meet the ever increasing unmet needs of the patients. However, expectations of the stakeholders are also growing and justifiably so. There is no time for the industry, in general, to ponder much now or rest on the past laurels. It is about time to walk the never ending extra mile, for the global patients’ sake.

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.

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.