Tag Archives: Property

Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Posted on by
Reply

Public access to healthcare in India is a complex issue with several challenges. While India has been making progress over the years in improving healthcare access and reducing the burden of disease, there are still significant disparities in healthcare access and outcomes across the country. The three primary barriers continue to remain:

  • Affordable access to quality healthcare: This arises out of the shortage of healthcare infrastructure and resources, more in rural areas. The shortage includes an inadequate number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, as well as inadequate facilities and equipment.
  • Cost of healthcare: While India has a largely publicly funded healthcare system, the quality of care in public hospitals is often poor, and many people are forced to opt for private healthcare, which can be expensive.
  • Access to affordable drugs: Despite India being a major producer of generic drugs, many people in India still lack access to essential medicines. This is due in part to the high cost of branded medicines, which are often out of reach for many people, as well as a lack of availability of certain medicines in some areas.

Undoubtedly, this remains a weak area for the country, till date. Successive Indian governments have taken steps to address these challenges. However, public funding on healthcare as a percentage of GDP and implementation of policies to increase access to medicine, continue to remain below par. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all people have access to quality healthcare and essential medicines.

Amid this situation, especially on the international political front, drug MNCs are continuously blaming India for the fact that the Indian Patents Act is not robust enough to protect their drug patents on NMEs and technologies. For example, in its 2022 Special 301 Report, the USTR designated seven countries on the Priority Watch List. These are Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela. To give some more examples from the available reports:

  • In February 2021, PhRMA, a trade group representing multinational pharmaceutical companies, raised concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. PhRMA argued that India’s policies were undermining innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India. 
  • In March 2021, Pfizer’s CEO also expressed concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. He said that Pfizer was facing challenges in obtaining patents for its products in India, and that the lack of adequate patent protection was discouraging investment in research and development.
  • In May 2021, Novartis’s CEO criticized India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. HE stated that the lack of adequate patent protection in India was discouraging innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India. 

Against this backdrop, in today’s article I shall deliberate on this vexing issue – starting from some key grievances of drug MNCs in this regard. Thereafter we will look at the Indian industry response to drug MNCs’ concern about the robustness of the Indian Patents Acts. This could possibly help us to understand the key question – Is it then an attempt to exploit India’s weakness regarding inadequate overall access to medicines for monopolistic gain by the vested interest?

Key grievances of drug MNCs for poor access to medicines in India: 

One can recall that the Patent Act in India was amended in 2005 to comply with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The amendment made it more difficult for multinational pharmaceutical companies to obtain patents for their products in India for the ‘me too’ type of innovation, which has led to lower prices for medicines and increased access to affordable drugs for the Indian population.

However, drug MNCs generally argue that:

  • The lack of adequate patent protection in India discourages innovation and investment in research and development, which ultimately limits the availability of new drugs for patients in India.
  • They have also criticized the Indian government’s use of compulsory licensing, which allows the government to authorize a third party to produce a patented drug without the consent of the patent holder. They argue that this undermines their intellectual property rights and discourages investment in research and development, which ultimately limits access to new and innovative drugs for patients in India.

Counter argument by Indian companies:

Indian companies, on the contrary, defend their position and policies related to access to medicines and healthcare in India, and have responded to the accusations made by drug MNCs in the following ways:

  • Provides adequate patent protection: The Indian Patents Act provides adequate IP protection, in accordance with the TRIPS agreement. They have also pointed out that the patent laws in India allow for the grant of patents for genuine inventions, while preventing the grant of frivolous or secondary patents (the me-too types), which can result in excessive monopolies and high prices for medicine. 
  • Encourage innovation: Indian policies have not discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have pointed out that Indian companies invest heavily in research and development and have developed several innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities in India and around the world. 
  • Rare occurrence of Compulsory licensing: The use of compulsory licensing is a legitimate tool under international law and is aimed at promoting public health and ensuring that life-saving drugs are accessible and affordable to patients in India. They have also pointed out that the use of compulsory licensing is a rare occurrence in India and is only used in exceptional circumstances.

Overall, Indian drug companies have emphasized their commitment to improving access to medicines and healthcare in India, while ensuring that their policies are in line with international laws and regulations. They have also emphasized the need for collaboration and dialogue with multinational pharmaceutical companies to find mutually acceptable solutions that benefit patients in India and around the world.

Examples of innovative drugs developed by Indian drug companies:

It’s interesting to note that in the same IP scenario, Indian companies with limited resources, are developing innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities around the world. Here are a few examples, as reported at different times:

  • Lipaglyn: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Lipaglyn is the first-ever drug approved for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. It has been approved in India and several other countries, including the European Union. 
  • Tafinlar: Developed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tafinlar is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of advanced melanoma. 
  • Mycapssa: Developed by Sun Pharma, Mycapssa is a novel oral formulation of octreotide, a hormone therapy used to treat acromegaly. It has been approved by the US FDA. 
  • Saroglitazar: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Saroglitazar is a dual PPAR agonist that has been approved in India for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). 
  • Nexavar: This much discussed drug, originally developed by Bayer and by Natco Pharma, is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of liver and kidney cancers.

Conclusion:

The IP issues keep haunting India and are being captured in different Special 301 Reports of the USTR, even after The Indian Patents Act 2005 came into force – till 2022. Any change to this Act seems very unlikely now as this is an important piece of legislation that helps balance the interests of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and access to affordable medicines. Any dilution of this Act could have negative consequences for India and its citizens.

From this perspective, I reckon, any further pressure in this area may be construed as an attempt to exploit India’s weakness of inadequate access to medicines for monopolistic gain by vested interests. 

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.

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on by
Reply

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs: 

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12thposition from its 10thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality? 

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

  • Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.
  • TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.
  • India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.
  • Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.
  • Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.
  • Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015.  Some of these observations are as follows:

  • WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.
  • WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.
  • Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.
  • WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.
  • Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.
  • Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

-       “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

-       “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

-      “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

-      “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

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.

Cancer Care: Dawns A New Era Of Precision Medicine In India

Posted on by
Reply

The concept of ‘Precision Medicine’ has started gaining increasing importance, in the treatment process of many serious diseases, such as cancer. It is now happening in many countries of the world, including India.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States, describes ‘Precision Medicine’ as:

“An emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person.”

This is quite in contrast to the widely practiced “one-size-fits-all” type of drug treatment approach, where disease treatment and prevention strategies are developed for the average person, with less consideration for the differences between individuals.

It continues, irrespective of the fact that the same drug doesn’t always work exactly the same way for everyone. It can be difficult for a physician to predict, which patient will benefit from a medication and who won’t, besides having any advance inkling on who will experience Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) with it, and who will not.

Whereas, the treatment path of ‘Precision Medicine’ allows doctors to predict more accurately which treatment and prevention strategies will work most effectively for a particular disease, and in which groups of people. This is mainly because, ‘Precision Medicine’ looks at the root cause of the ailment for each patient.

For example, in cancer care, use of the term ‘Precision Medicine’ would mean a treatment process for patients with similar tumors, that has been immaculately worked out in accordance with their unique genetic, physical, psychosocial, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Thus, especially for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, a gradual shift from “one-size-fits-all” types of medicines to ‘Precision Medicines”, could bring a new hope of longer survival or remission, for many such patients.

For example, in precision cancer care, it is all about analyzing a patient’s tumor to determine with specificity what drug or combination of drugs will work best with least side effects for that particular individual.

In this article, I shall focus on the development, use and benefits of ‘Precision Medicine’ in cancer, especially in India.

Not a radically new concept:

Several examples of ‘Precision Medicine’ can be found in a few other areas of medicine, as well, though its use in everyday health care is not very widespread, as on date.

One such example can be drawn from the blood transfusion area. A person requiring it, is not given blood from a randomly selected donor. To minimize the risk of any possible post-transfusion related complications, the blood for transfusion is selected only after scientific confirmation that the donor’s blood type matches to the recipient.

Difference between ‘Precision’ and ‘Personalized’ Medicines:

There is a significant overlap between these two terminologies. According to the National Research Council (NRC) of the United States, ‘Personalized Medicine’ is an older term having a meaning similar to ‘Precision medicine’, but may not always be exactly the same.

This change was necessitated as the term ‘Personalized’ could be interpreted to imply that treatments and preventions are being developed uniquely for each individual. Whereas, in ‘Precision Medicine’, the focus is on identifying which approaches will be effective for which patients based on genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, as stated above. The NRC, therefore, preferred the term ‘Precision Medicine’ to ‘Personalized Medicine’ to avoid such confusions or misunderstandings. Nevertheless, these two terms are still being used interchangeably.

Another terminology – ‘Pharmacogenomics’ is also used by some, in the same context, which is, in fact, a part of ‘Precision Medicine’. According to National Library of Medicine, United States, Pharmacogenomics is the study of how genes affect a person’s response to particular drugs. This relatively new field combines pharmacology (the science of drugs) and genomics (the study of genes and their functions) to develop effective, safe medications and doses that will be tailored to variations in a person’s genes.

Global initiatives taking off:

Currently, in various parts of the world, there are many initiatives in this area. However, one singular state sponsored initiative, I reckon, is exemplary and stands out.

According to NIH, in early 2015, President Obama announced a research effort focusing on bringing ‘Precision Medicine’ to many aspects of health care. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2016 included US$216 million in funding for the initiative for the NIH, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) – the NIH institute focused on cancer research, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

‘The Precision Medicine Initiative’ has both short-term and long-term goals:

  • The short-term goals involve expanding precision medicine in the area of cancer research. Researchers at the NCI hope to use this approach to find new, more effective treatments for various kinds of cancer based on increased knowledge of the genetics and biology of the disease.
  • The long-term goals focus on bringing ‘Precision Medicine’ to all areas of health and healthcare on a large scale.

The market:

According to a July 2016 research report by Global Market Insights, Inc., the ‘Precision Medicine’ market size was over US$39 billion in 2015, and has been estimated to grow at 10.5 percent CAGR from 2016 to 2023, expanding the market to US$ 87.79 billion by end 2023.

The demand for ‘Precision Medicine’ is expected to significantly increase, specifically in cancer treatments, and also would be driven by advancements in new healthcare technologies, and favorable government regulations, in this area.

Faster US regulatory approval:

According to an August 15, 2016 article, published in the ‘MedCity News’ – a leading online news source for the business of innovation in health care, companion diagnostics, this trend is gaining currency as novel drugs are being paired up with tests that determine which patients will have a higher chance of responding to that drug.

This is vindicated by an expert analysis of a recent study, which found that the probability of a drug approval jumped three-times to 25.9 percent of those drugs that were approved with a predictive biomarker, from 8.4 percent for drugs without one.  This means a threefold increase in success, as determined by FDA registration, if any pharma or biologic drug company had a predictive marker in its new product development strategy. This indication would expectedly encourage more drugs to come with companion diagnostics than without, as the analysis underscored.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States defines ‘Biomarkers’ or ‘Biological Markers’ as, “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacological responses to a therapeutic intervention.”

‘Precision Medicine’ in India:

In the Indian health care space, ‘Precision Medicine’ is still in its nascent stage. This is despite its need in the country being high, especially while treating life threatening ailments, such as cancer, with greater precision, predictability and, therefore, more effectively than at present.

In several focus group studies too, the local medical specialists have also concurred with the global estimation of the inherent potential of ‘Precision Medicine’, as it rapidly evolves in India, particularly for use in oncology.

Local research:

Studies related to ‘Precision Medicine’ have already commenced, though in a modest scale, in a number of Government research centers, such as, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), National Institute of Biomedical Genomics (NIBMG) and Institute of Genomics & Integrative Biology (IGIB).

Some large Government Hospitals too, like, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), and even in Tata Memorial Hospital are making good progress in this area.

Local potential and market impact:

In March 2016, a leading daily of India had reported with examples that oncologists have started using ‘Precision Medicine’, in the country.

In this report, a molecular geneticist was quoted saying, “We see patients with blood, breast, lung, and colon cancer being referred for genetic testing on a routine basis. This testing is either for predictive purposes or for precision medicine guidance, where genetic tests are increasingly being used to determine which drug may be used for treatment.”

“We have had more than a few cases where patients respond well after being put on a new drug based on the results of these tests,” the expert said.

According to a May 2016 report of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), in the year 2016, the total number of new cancer cases is expected to be around 14.5 lakh (1.5 million), and the figure is likely to reach nearly 17.3 lakh (1.7 million) of new cases in 2020.

Over 7.36 lakh (736,000) people are expected to succumb to this disease in 2016 while the figure is estimated to shoot up to 8.8 lakh (880,000) by 2020. The data also revealed that only 12.5 percent of patients come for treatment in early stages of the disease.

Taking note of this fast ascending trend, it would be quite reasonable to expect that treatment with ‘Precision Medicine’, using advanced genetic profiling, would catch up, and grow proportionally in some section of the population, sooner than later. This trend is expected to keep pace with the commensurate increase in the anti-cancer drug market of India.

In tandem, the demand for preventive measures, especially, for cancer, cardiovascular, psychosomatic and many chronic metabolic diseases at the onset or prior to even onset stages, based on genome-based diagnostics, are also expected to go north. This would primarily be driven by increasing health awareness of the younger generation of India.

The spin-off commercial benefits for the pharma and diagnostic players in India, competing in these segments, could well be a significant boost even in the market potential of the older generic drugs in new patient groups, prompted by many out-of- box diagnostic and disease treatment strategies.

Another interesting article on genomic diagnostics for ‘Precision Medicine’, published on March 15, 2016 by ‘Pistoia Alliance’ – a global, not-for-profit alliance in life science that aims at lowering barriers to innovation in R&D, also expressed similar views regarding the future potential of ‘Precision Medicine’ in India.

Some key strategic steps:

Taking proactively some key strategic steps for business planning and development by the domestic pharma and diagnostic players, is now more important than ever before. This may call for developing some critical studies that would accelerate working out novel strategies for ‘Precision Medicine’ in India, besides obtaining required regulatory approvals in the coming years. The studies may include, among others:

  • Detailed analysis of target patient populations
  • Their genetic makeup for different types, or sub-types of diseases
  • Addressable sub populations
  • Their current treatment strategies, costs, affordability and differentiated value offerings of each, if any.

Conclusion:

Genomic research in India is now mainly directed towards routine genome-based diagnostics for a number of conditions, mostly for cancer. The country needs to encourage taking rapid strides to first sharpen and then gradually broaden this area, in various ways, for more effective and predictable treatment outcomes with ‘Precision Medicine’. As on date, most of such studies are carried out in the United States and Europe.

Alongside, a robust regulatory framework is required to be put in place, for wider usage of ‘Precision Medicine’ in India, without causing any concern to stakeholders. Government should also explore the need of clearly defining, and putting in place transparent, patient-friendly and robust Intellectual Property (IP) policies in the ‘Precision Medicine’ related areas to encourage innovation.

Healthcare expenditure being out-of-pocket for a vast majority of the population in India, the additional cost to be incurred for genomic sequencing tests, still remains a huge concern for many. Nevertheless, the good news is, many players have now gradually started entering into this area, spurring a healthy competition. This process would also gain accelerated momentum, as we move on.

This is just a dawn of a new era of ‘Precision Medicine’ in India. Its rapid development, is expected to be driven by a large number of startups, equipped with state-of-art technology, and hopefully, with greater health insurance penetration and the support from the Government. All this would bring the ‘Precision Medicine’ treatment cost affordable to a sizeable section of the population in the country, particularly for the treatment of cancer. The evolving scenario appears to be a win-win one, both for the patients, as well as the pharma and diagnostic players in India.

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. 

Utility Model: Would It Work In India For Pharma?

Posted on by
Reply

The revised draft of India’s IPR Policy penned by the Government constituted ‘Think-Tank’ in 2014, suggests enactment of new laws, such as for ‘Utility Models’ and Trade Secrets, to fill some gaps in the country’s IPR ecosystem .

However, media reports of May 21, 2015 indicate, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is not in favor of changing the country’s ‘Patents Law’ framework to allow grant of utility patents, as suggested by the ‘Think-Tank’.

Though comments from the other Ministries and Departments on the revised draft IPR Policy is still awaited, DIPP reportedly feels, ‘Utility Models’ being less-stringent form of intellectual Property (IP) protection, could ultimately lead to ‘ever-greening’ of patents.

A volte-face?

This development is indeed interesting because on May 13, 2011 the same DIPP uploaded in its website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models”. Many believed at that time, it as a precursor of a new policy initiative of DIPP on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the prevailing strict criteria for patentability. The above Discussion Paper highlighted, among others:

“…minor technical inventions which frugally use local resources in a sustainable manner need to be encouraged by providing a legal framework for their protection and commercial exploitation. Such useful, low cost and relatively simple innovations which create new mechanical devices or contribute to the optimal functioning of existing ones may have commercial value only for a limited time period, before they are replaced by other products or rendered redundant by change of technology.”

In that paper DIPP also highlighted that many countries of the world, for example; Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea and Netherlands still find the ‘Utility Model’ as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

We shall also touch upon this point below.

The Discussion Paper did trigger a healthy national debate on this subject at that time, though Government did not make known to the public the outcome of this public discourse.

The definition:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines ‘Utility Model’ as follows:

“Utility Model is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which allows the right holder to prevent others from commercially using the protected invention, without his authorization, for a limited period of time. In its basic definition, which may vary from one country (where such protection is available) to another, a utility model is similar to a patent. In fact, utility models are sometimes referred to as petty patents or innovation patents.”

Or in other words “A utility model is similar to a patent in that it provides a monopoly right for an invention.”

However, utility models are much cheaper to obtain, the requirements for grant of a ‘Utility Model’ are usually less stringent and the term is shorter – mostly between 7 and 10 years, as against up to 20 years term of protection for a patent. 

Major differences between Utility Models and Patents:

According to WIPO, the main differences between ‘Utility Models’ and patents can be summarized as follows:

  • The requirements for acquiring a ‘Utility Model’ are less stringent than for patents. While the requirement of “novelty” is always to be met, that of “inventive step” or “non-obviousness” may be much lower or absent altogether.  In practice, protection for ‘Utility Models’ is often sought for innovations of rather incremental in character, which may not meet the patentability criteria.
  • The term of protection for ‘Utility Models’ is shorter than for patents and varies from country to country (usually between 7 and 10 years without the possibility of extension or renewal).
  • In most countries where ‘Utility Model’ protection is available, patent offices do not examine applications as to substance prior to registration. This means that the registration process is often significantly simpler and faster, taking on an average about six months.
  • ‘Utility Models’ are much cheaper to obtain and to maintain.
  • In some countries, ‘Utility Model’ protection can only be obtained for certain fields of technology and only for products but not for processes.

Countries providing ‘Utility Model’ protection:

Many countries do not grant ‘Utility Models’. However, the major countries granting ‘Utility Models’, as stated above, include: Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

According to WIPO, currently the countries and regions that provide ‘Utility Models’ are as follows:

Albania, Angola, Argentina, ARIPO, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, OAPI, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan.

Interestingly, ‘Utility Models are not available in the United Kingdom or the United States.

A recent allegation of ‘Utility Model’ infringement against a global pharma: 

Quite recently, in November 2014, Copenhagen headquartered Forward Pharma A/S reportedly filed a lawsuit against Biogen Idec GmbH, Biogen Idec Internaional GmbH and Biogen Idec Ltd. in the Regional Court in Dusseldorf, alleging infringement of its German ‘Utility Model’ DE 20 2005 022 112 due to Biogen Idec’s marketing of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Tecfidera® – a product containing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) as the active ingredient, is used for the treatment of Myasthenia Gravis (MS).

Forward Pharma asserted that its above ‘Utility Model’ precludes anyone from selling in Germany, without the Company’s consent, drugs with DMF as the sole active pharmaceutical ingredient for the treatment of MS at a daily dose of 480 mg.

With this lawsuit Forward Pharma did not seek to stop sales of Tecfidera® to MS patients, but rather sought damages for what the Company believes are Biogen Idec’s unlawful sales of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Although ‘Utility Models’ are registered without substantive examination, the Company reiterated its belief in the validity and enforceability of the said ‘Utility Model.’

Subsequently, on April 14, 2015 Forward Pharma A/S announced that an interference was declared by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on April 13, 2015 between the Company’s patent application 11/576,871 (the “’871 patent application”) and Biogen’s issued patent 8,399,514 (the “’514 patent”).

The PTAB reportedly designated Forward Pharma A/S as the “Senior Party” in the interference based on the Company’s earlier patent application filing date.

Would ‘Utility Model’ be useful in pharma?

Utility Models (UM) are considered particularly suited for SMEs that make “minor” improvements to, and adaptations of, existing products. It is worth noting that UMs are primarily used for mechanical innovations.

However, in India, the ‘Utility Model’ concept in pharma would be directly conflicting with the intent and spirit of the section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 of the country, which clearly stipulates that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known ‘clinical’ efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant, is not patentable.

Therefore, section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, is considered as one of the most important safeguards against “evergreening” of patents, usually done through alleged “molecular manipulation or tweaking”, that delays entry of affordable generic equivalents, adversely impacting the public health interest.

In that sense, enactment of a new law granting protection to pharma ‘Utility Models’ in India could seriously jeopardize both short and long term health interests of the patients, in general.

This is primarily because, being denied of a 20 year product patent under section 3(d), the same company would then be eligible to apply and may also probably get a monopoly status for that molecule, though for a shorter term with ‘Utility Models’.It would obviously happen at the cost of quicker entry of equivalent affordable generics.

Conclusion: 

Considering all these, and having witnessed a serious allegation of a ‘Utility Model’ (which goes through no more than a liberal regulatory scrutiny) infringement, against a major patented pharma product that passed through the acid test of stringent and cost intensive regulatory requirements, it appears that ‘Utility Models’ need to be excluded, especially for pharmaceuticals in India.

This is purely for the sake of patients’ interest, at least on the following two counts:

  • All new/novel drugs, without any compromise whatsoever, should pass through the stringent acid test of the drug regulatory requirements for requisite efficacy, safety and quality standards.
  • ‘Evergreening’ of patents, under any garb, delaying entry of affordable equivalent cheaper generics, should not be encouraged in the country.

Thus, in my view, Indian Government should continue to remain firm with its bold stance on the relevance of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Any possibility of its dilution by a grant of market monopoly, though for a much shorter period, covering incremental innovations that do not conform to the country’s IP laws, must be openly discouraged with robust reasons.

In that sense, the flag raised by the DIPP on the intriguing recommendation of the IPR Policy ‘Think Tank’ for enacting new laws in India for ‘Utility Model’, appears to be pragmatic and far sighted, specifically in the context of pharmaceuticals.

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.

TPP: Discord Within A Strange Mélange And Impact On Access To Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

On May 19, 2015, Bloomberg reported that a sizable number of President Barack Obama’s own party colleagues, besides teachers, seniors, Internet freedom groups and nuns, have joined the push to defeat the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

Before I delve into the TPP, solely from the Indian pharmaceutical industry perspective, it is worth acknowledging upfront India’s firm assertion, repeatedly, to continue with its well-thought out and robust Patents Act 2005.

Even the final draft of the National IPR policy, which is now being circulated for inter-ministerial consultations and will soon be taken up by the Cabinet, reasserted that the country’s IPR policy is fully compliant with the Trade Related aspects of IPR (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In this process, global demonstration of India’s firm resolve against dilution of the country’s Intellectual Property (IP) regime, coming under any form of intense external pressure, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general.

This trend now gets reflected from some constituents even within the United States, besides several members of the 12-nation TPP, which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty, aimed at strengthening relationship on economic policies and regulatory issues between the member nations.

Publicly articulated key objectives of the pact are to significantly reduce tariffs between the member nations and open up trade, boosting investment flows between its signatories, to accelerate economic growth.

The member countries of TPP have also agreed to work together on issues such as customs procedures, labor practices, intellectual property and competition policies.

Through its comprehensive coverage of issues and binding regulations, TPP is expected to set new benchmark for international trade. It is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Uneasy secrecy:

However, the uneasy secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the agreement makes its critics seriously apprehensive about its impact on the developing nations of the world. This is because; the concerned delegates of the negotiating team always remain tight lipped about the progress made in coming to an agreement on the scope of the pact. This information is critical for assessment of direct and indirect global impact of TPP on the trade, economy and society, in general.

According to reports, TPP members, such as, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Besides the above countries, other members of TPP are United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

Large Asian economies are not a part:

Interestingly, large Asian economies, especially, four important members of the G20, namely, China, India, South Korea and Indonesia, are not a part of the TPP, just yet.

It is worth noting, TPP is being led by the world’s largest economy and the biggest trading nation – the United States, the country that sees Asia-Pacific as key to its future growth.

Noting all these, many experts in this field, across the world, have already raised a flag saying that the US may be trying to use TPP as a means to undermine China’s growing economic might in the region.

Many gaps still to bridge:

The real negotiations for this treaty started only in 2010 and are still continuing. However, the details of negotiations is so much shrouded under water tight secrecy, even to the lawmakers of the United States, it is indeed challenging for anyone to predict the timeframe of its coming to fruition.

Reuters reported on May 21, 2015, “Chief negotiators from the 12 TPP countries are trying to bridge gaps for a deal at a meeting in Guam that will run through to May 28, 2015. But ministers would need to meet to clinch an accord,”

In this article, I shall only focus on the possible impact of this pact on the access to medicines, especially in the developing world.

Leaked drafts of TPP negotiations:

As the progress of negotiations of this pact continue to remain under uneasy secrecy, on November 13, 2013, WikiLeaks released the secretly negotiated draft text for the entire IPR Chapter of the TPP.

30,000-word IP chapter of the leaked documents, besides others, reportedly contains proposals to increase the term of drug patents beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

TPP and patents:

When it comes to the issue of access to affordable medicines for a vast majority of the global population, the overall patent ecosystem of a nation and how evergreening of patents with monopolistic high pricing are addressed, automatically enter into the broader framework of intense public and stakeholders’ discourse.

Article 8.1 of the draft agreement sets-forth the availability of patents, and provides that “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product; and these may satisfy the criteria for patentability, even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the product.”

Interestingly, TRIPS agreement, on the other hand, specifies that patents are available “provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.”

In that sense, the above provision in the Article. 8.1 is quite inconsistent with the patent laws of many TPP member countries, and especially India.

Consequently, experts have raised serious concerns about the impact of TPP on the IP laws of a country, in general, as it may extend the scope of drug patents, preventing free distribution of cheaper generic drugs to the needy patients.

Impact on access to medicines:

As stated earlier, there have been serious apprehensions that TPP would adversely impact the access to medicines.

According to widely reported leaked drafts of TPP negotiations, the US is demanding aggressive IP provisions in the agreement. It is believed, if accepted, these would directly undermine public health safeguards available in international law, making it harder for TPP member countries to gain access to cheaper generic drugs.

Many experts in this field reportedly construe, these stringent IP provisions that the US is demanding may be categorized as ‘TRIPS-plus’ and have the following serious impact adversely impacting access to medicines :

  • Make it impossible to challenge the validity of a patent before it is granted
  • Lower the requirements for patentability, so that minor alterations of existing medicines can be 
given additional protected monopoly status, even if the alteration offers no therapeutic benefit
  • Require the patenting of diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods
  • Lengthen patent monopolies for pharmaceutical firms so that they keep generics out and inflate drug prices for longer periods of time
  • Make it harder for generic manufacturers to obtain regulatory approval for their drugs
  • Create additional monopolies based on clinical data
  • Impose new forms of IP enforcement that give customs officials excessive powers to impound legitimate generic medicines
  • Impose higher prices on national pharmaceutical reimbursement programs
  • Allow pharmaceutical companies to sue governments and limit governments’ abilities to effectively set prices for medicines and legislate in the interest of public health.

Discord within key TPP member countries:

Though Australia is one of the key signatories of TPP, in February 2015, the Medical Journal of Australia also commented that the leaked draft of the agreement includes patenting standards that would delay cheaper drugs.

Quoting the Medical Journal of Australia, ‘The Guardian’ too reiterated: “The most recently leaked draft of the international trade deal includes provisions proposed by the US that would further protect the monopoly pharmaceutical companies hold over drugs, and delay cheaper versions from entering the market. The draft agreement sets in stone low patenting standards, which allow drug companies to practice ‘evergreening’ – when a pharmaceutical company tries to maintain its market monopoly on a drug for longer by applying for extra patents. This prevents other companies entering the market with cheaper versions of the same medicine and imposes large and unnecessary costs on the health system and consumers.”

Similarly, across Canada, people are speaking out about the TPP. They are rallying against the secrecy of the 12-country negotiations and the corporate agenda behind the deal.

On February 12, 2015 legislators in seven of the 12 TPP countries issued the following joint statement about the negotiations:

“We, the undersigned legislators from countries involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, call on the Parties to the negotiation to publish the draft text of the Agreement before any final agreement is signed with sufficient time to enable effective legislative scrutiny and public debate.”

In Canada, the federal NDP and the Green Party of Canada endorsed the above statement. It is the simplest of demands for democracy on a “trade” deal that threatens to undermine the very notion of the public good, by giving corporations more power to undermine public policy.

As stated above, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are also negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Though not in the areas of access to medicines, Japan too expressed its concerns on TPP impacting its agriculture sector. Protests are forthcoming in the copyrights area, as well.

Apprehensions catching-up in the US too:

May 19, 2015 Bloomberg report also indicates, specifically from the pharmaceutical industry perspective, some key stakeholders are worried about the effects of more open markets on drug pricing that could increase their costs and “Foreign corporations or subsidiaries will be able to challenge a number of public health programs.”

In a letter of May 12, 2015 to the House and Senate, the Alliance for Retired Americans has reportedly underscored the possibility of this grave danger to them, if TPP comes into effect.

On May 21, 2015, Reuters reported, just 13 out of 44 Democrats (of President Obama’s own Party) backed the legislation in the Senate’s second procedural vote on last Thursday.

Earlier, a group of over 30 legal academics reportedly sent a letter to the US Trade Representative, expressing “profound concern and disappointment at the lack of public participation, transparency and open government processes in the negotiation of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP”.

Other important areas of criticism: 

Other key areas of criticism of TPP are as follows:

  • Excessive emphasis on trade issues that have remained unresolved or unaddressed at the WTO due to differences between developed and emerging markets.
  • Adopting a negotiating style reflecting the US regulatory approach to international trade
  • Allowing companies to sue foreign governments, which would allow them to dodge health and environmental standards.
  • Giving shape to a geo-political road map of the US that supports its strategic rebalancing towards Asia.

A strange mélange:

An article published in the April 9, 2015 edition of Forbes, titled “TPP Is A Mistake”, very appropriately describes TPP as a strange mélange of 12 members countries that includes five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand.

In terms of populations, the total American contingent which stands at 535 million, more than half the total population of the Americas (947 million), is significantly larger than the Asian population figures which amount to no more than 256.6 million (285 if one adds Australia and New Zealand), compared to Asia’s total population of 4.3 billion: almost half of the Asian contingent is accounted for by one member – Japan, the articles states.

In this article, former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the architect of Malaysia’s impressive economic growth and development during his tenure from 1981 to 2003, was quoted saying:

“The strongest campaigner of TPP is America … which seeks … to contain China and to safeguard its own economic interests by exploiting all resources from small but growing independent nations such as Malaysia”.

He further adds, “TPP is not a fair or free trade partnership, but an agreement to tie down nations with rules and regulations that would only benefit American conglomerates”.

Is TPP more than just a trade agreement?

Many experts feel, that TPP is basically a geopolitical tool to contain China with ‘trade’ as its façade.

The votaries of TPP argue that it aims to achieve a very high standard trade agreement and thus the reason of keeping China out of it is not geopolitical. Other Asian nations, including China, can apply and qualify for membership once they commit to meeting these high standards, they reiterate.

The above argument does not seem to be a robust one, as that would mean, a sizable proportion of its smaller current members, such as, Vietnam, already conform to so called ‘high standards’, as required for the TPP agreement.

Besides geopolitical issue, many are also questioning whether TPP is what the developing countries need, especially, at this stage of their development.

Conclusion:

One may quite pertinently ask, in what way TPP is relevant to India?

TPP is relevant to India in the sense that it is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Be that as it may, if I restrict myself only to the drug patent related area of the proposed pact, it appears, unless the damaging provisions in the concerned chapters are removed through negotiations before the agreement is finalized, the TPP would possibly turn out to be the most harmful trade pact ever, especially from the perspective of access to medicines in the developing countries of the worlds.

May 2015 issue of ‘amfAR’ – The Foundation for AIDS Research based in Washington DC of the United States captured the essence of possible healthcare related issues with TPP – the pact of a strange mélange of 12 member countries, with the following words:

“By providing avenues for pharmaceutical companies to extend IP protection beyond what is required by current international standards, the TPP could greatly delay the entrance of generic competition for much-needed medicines and keep prices high. Doing so would continue an unacceptable and dangerous trend of irrevocable expansion of IP protections at the expense of access to medicines and would serve as a justification for even more aggressive measures in future FTAs.”

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.

 

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

Posted on by
Reply

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

The above sharp, piercing and precise comment did not come from any health activist from India or elsewhere. It came from a team of highly credible academic experts working in the United States.

On February 10, 2015, Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also University Professor at Columbia University, former Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank, made this comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’.

The article is co-authored by Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC and Arjun Jayadev, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The authors arrived at the above conclusion based on some sound arguments. I am highlighting below some of those important ones (may not be in the same order):

  • A patent that raises the price of a drug a hundred-fold has the same effect on the market as a 10,000 percent tariff.
  • India’s Patents and Act and policies allow drugs to be sold at a small fraction of the monopoly prices commanded by patent holders. For example, the Hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is sold for US$84,000 per treatment in the US; Indian manufacturers are able to sell the generic version profitably for less than US$1,000 per treatment.
  • The threat of competition from Indian generics is partly responsible for major pharmaceutical companies’ decision to make some of their drugs available to the world’s poor at low prices. If the US compels India to tighten its patent rules substantially, so that they resemble US rules more closely, this outcome could be jeopardized.
  • Multilateral approach, using the World Trade Organization (WTO), has proved less effective than the major multinational pharmaceutical companies hoped, so now they are attempting to achieve this goal through bilateral and regional agreements.
  • In the view of America’s pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS did not go far enough. The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.
  • In September 2014, during his visit to the US, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to establish a working group to reevaluate the country’s patent policy. The US participants in that group will be led by the Office of the US Trade Representative, which serves the pharmaceutical companies’ interests, rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health.

Any comparable voice in favor of changes in Indian Patents Act?

I don’t seem to have heard or read as strong arguments from as credible sources as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev – the authors of the above article, in favor of the changes that American pharma companies want in the Indian Patents Act.

India at the center stage in IPR debate:

In the IPR debate, India is continuously being seen at the center stage for various reasons. The key one being the size, scale and economic efficiency that the home grown Indian pharma players have attained to cater to the needs of a large number of global population, including those residing in the United States and Europe, with a wide range of high quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Fast evolving scenario:

It is now absolutely clear that being rattled by several refusals of India’s granting product patent to very similar molecules with minor tweaking under section (3d) of the country’s Patents Act, together with the nation’s uprightness in issuing Compulsory License (CL) for an enormously expensive cancer drug reducing its price by over 95 percent, United States now intends to directly intervene into India’s IPR policy environment.

As Nobel Laureate Stiglitz wrote, keen desire of the new dispensation of the Indian government to enhance its trade relations with the US has provided a golden opportunity to American pharma companies and their paid lobbyists to jump into the fray. They have started exerting enormous pressure on their own Government to compel India, at bilateral discussions, dilute its well-balanced Patents Act, ignoring India’s sovereign right to play by the flexibilities as provided by the WTO to protect public health interest in the country.

Both the domestic and international civil society organizations, including public health activists have expressed their serious concerns on this aggressive intent of US and India’s seemingly vulnerable position in this regard.

“The US is pushing India to play by its rules on Intellectual Property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people,” commented the Executive Director of MSF’s Access Campaign, according to media reports.

Non-pharma American Organizations reacted differently:

14 American organizations in a letter to their President Barack Obama dated January 20, 2015, just prior to his visit to India, asked him “to support India’s central role in providing high-quality, low-cost generic medicines -which are essential for health care around the world. Recent U.S. policy stances have sought to topple parts of India’s intellectual property regime that protect public health in order to advance the interests of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in longer, stronger, and broader exclusive patent and related monopoly rights. India’s laws fully comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Millions around the world depend on affordable generic medicines that would disappear if India acceded to these proposals, including many beneficiaries of US-funded programs. Instead of using your trip to promote the narrow interests of one segment of the pharmaceutical industry, we ask you to support the interests of people who need affordable medicines, whether they live in the U.S., in India, in Africa or elsewhere. Our world is safer and healthier because of India’s pro-health stance and we ask you to say so publicly while you are there.”

The letter re-emphasized at the end:

“From Detroit to New Delhi, health is increasingly interconnected. Our world is safer when it is healthier, and it is healthier because India’s laws appropriately balance health and IP.” 

An interesting development:

It is interesting to note that after Winter Session of the Indian Parliament, the Modi Government announced a number of important policy changes at the end of December 2014.

Interestingly, one more critical policy – National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy has been left open for public comments and the final IPR Policy is yet to be announced despite enormous American pressure on India in this regard.

Without any specifics, the first draft of the National IPR policy just states that India will “review and update IP laws, where necessary, and remove anomalies and inconsistencies, if any.”  It does emphasize though, the need of “more innovation” in the country, unequivocally and quite justifiably.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

It is generally believed that the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy is undoubtedly a positive step to clarify the Government’s stand in maintaining a balanced IP regime in the country that would encourage innovation to add speed to the progress of the nation.

In just 10 years Indian IPR regime has, by and large, attracted enormous global attention mostly for balancing IP and public health interest, admirably. Experts like Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz sincerely hope that India will not change this course under pressure of any kind or form.

Be that as it may, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In my subsequent articles in this blog, I shall deliberate on these two contentious issues, keeping the evolving scenario in perspective.

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.

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Whether under pressure or not, is hardly of any relevance now. What is relevant today is the fact that the new Indian Government, almost in a record time of just around two months, has been able to release a high quality first draft of an important national policy for public discourse.

In October 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India and taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders has now been scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

The proposed ‘Mission Statement’ as stated in the draft “National IPR Policy” is:

“To establish a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and to accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.”

Specifying its vision, mission and objectives, the draft policy suggests adopting a catchy national slogan to increase IP awareness: ‘Creative India; Innovative India’ and integrating IP with “Smart cities”, “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns of the new Government.

The ‘Think Tank’ dwells on the following seven areas:

  • IP Awareness and Promotion
  • Creation of IP
  • Legal and Legislative Framework
  • IP Administration and Management
  • Commercialization of IP
  • Enforcement and Adjudication
  • Human Capital Development

In the policy document, the ‘Think Tank’ has discussed all the above seven areas in detail. However, putting all these in a nutshell, I shall highlight only three of those important areas.

1. To encourage IP, the ‘Think Tank’ proposes to provide statutory incentives, like tax benefits linked to IP creation, for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization.

2. For speedy redressal of patent related disputes, specialized patent benches in the high courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras have been mooted. The draft also proposes creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are already located and at least one designated IP court at the district level.

3. The draft concludes by highlighting that a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IP Policy, linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of overall working of the National IP Policy and quantification of the results achieved during the period have also been suggested, along with a major review of the policy after 3 years.

Although the National IPR policy cuts across the entire industrial spectrum and domains, in this article I shall deliberate on it solely from the pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Stakeholders’ keen interest in the National IPR Policy – Key reasons:

Despite full support of the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the angst of the pharma MNCs on the well-balanced product patent regime in India has been simmering since its very inception, way back in 2005.

A chronicle of recent events, besides the seven objectives of the IPR policy as enumerated above, created fresh general inquisitiveness on how would this new policy impact the current pharmaceutical patent regime of India, both in favor and also against.

Here below are examples of some of those events:

  • At a Congressional hearing of the United States in July 2013, a Congressman reportedly expressed his anger and called for taking actions against India by saying:

“Like all of you, my blood boils, when I hear that India is revoking and denying patents and granting compulsory licenses for cancer treatments or adopting local content requirements.”

This short video clipping captures the tone and mood of one such hearing of the US lawmakers.

  • On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.
  • It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.
  • “India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

-       India’s patentability requirements are (allegedly) in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.

-       Non-availability of regulatory data protection

-       Non-availability of patent term restoration

-       The use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations.

Based on this report, US Chamber of Commerce urged USTR to classify India as a “Priority Foreign Country”, a terminology reserved for the worst IP offenders, which could lead to trade sanctions.

  • In the midst of all these, international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

  • Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.
  • In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.
  • However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

A perspective of National IPR Policy in view of Pharma MNCs’ concerns:

I shall now focus on four key areas of concern/allegations against India on IPR and in those specific areas what has the draft National IPR Policy enumerated.

- Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: Just last week (January 15, 2015), Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down, despite prior licensing agreements of Gilead in India, fetching huge relief to a large number of patients suffering from Hepatitis C Virus, in the country.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

- Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

- Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

- Concern 4: “Non-availability of patent term restoration, patent linkage, use of compulsory licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations”.

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Conclusion: 

Overall, the first draft of the outcome-based model of the National IPR Policy appears to me as fair and balanced, especially considering its approach to the evolving IPR regime within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The draft policy though touches upon the ‘Utility Model’, intriguingly does not deliberate on ‘Open Source Innovation’ or ‘Open Innovation’.

Be that as it may, the suggested pathway for IPR in India seems to be clear, unambiguous, and transparent. The draft policy understandably has not taken any extreme stance on any aspect of the IP. Nor does it succumb to high voltage power play of the United States and its allies in the IPR space, which, if considered, could go against the public health interest.

It is heartening to note, a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IPR Policy, which will be linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and the results achieved will also be undertaken. A major review of the policy will be done after 3 years.

That said, pharma MNCs in general, don’t seem to quite agree with this draft policy probably based purely on commercial considerations, shorn of public health interest. It is quite evident, when a senior lobbyist of a powerful American pharma lobby group reportedly commented to Indian media on the draft National IPR Policy as follows:

“Real progress will only be achieved when India demonstrates through policy change that it does indeed value the importance of intellectual property, especially for the innovative treatments and cures of today and tomorrow”.

It appears, India continues to hold its stated ground on IPR with clearly enunciated policy statements. On the other hand MNCs don’t stop playing hardball either. Though these are still early days, the question that floats on the top of mind: Who would blink first?…India? Do you reckon so?

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.

 

Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Unprecedented high profile engagement of the Indian Prime Minister with various interested groups during his recent visit to the United States under equally unprecedented media glare, has invited overwhelmingly more kudos than brickbats, from across the world.

However, in the context of upholding patients’ health interest in India, a lurking fear did creep in, immediately after his visit to the United States. This was related to whether or not demonstrably tough minded Prime Minister Modi has yielded to enormous pressure created by all powerful American drug lobby against the current Intellectual Property (IP) regime in India.

The backdrop:

This apprehension started bothering many as the Prime Minister appeared to have moved away from a much-reiterated stand of India that any IP related issue would be discussed only in a multi-lateral forum.

That India’s Patents Act is TRIP’s compliant, has been categorically endorsed by a vast majority of international and national experts, including, a key intellectual belonging to Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Think -Tank’ – Arvind Panagariya, Professor of Economics at Columbia University, USA.

Subsequent to my blog post of February 5, 2014, an article dated March 4, 2014 titled “India Must Call The US’ Bluff On Patents” penned by Panagariya stated as follows:

“Critics of the Indian patent law chastise it for flouting its international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. When confronted with these critics, my (Arvind Panagariya) response has been to advise them:

  • To urge the US to challenge India in the WTO dispute settlement body and test whether they are indeed right.
  • Nine years have elapsed since the Indian law came into force; and, while bitterly complaining about its flaws, the USTR has not dared challenge it in the WTO. Nor would it do so now. Why?
  • There is, at best, a minuscule chance that the USTR will win the case.
  • Against this, it must weigh the near certainty of losing the case and the cost associated with such a loss.
  • Once the Indian law officially passes muster with the WTO, the USTR and pharmaceutical lobbies will no longer be able to maintain the fiction that India violates its WTO obligations.
  • Even more importantly, it will open the floodgates to the adoption of the flexibility provisions of the Indian law by other countries.
  • Activists may begin to demand similar flexibilities even within the US laws.

On possible actions against India under the ‘Special 301’ provision of the US trade law, Professor Arvind Panagariya argues:

“Ironically, this provision itself was ruled inconsistent with the WTO rules in 1999 and the US is forbidden from taking any action under it in violation of its WTO obligations. This would mean that it couldn’t link the elimination of tariff preferences on imports from India to TRIPS violation by the latter. The withdrawal of preferences would, therefore, constitute an unprovoked unilateral action, placing India on firm footing for its retaliatory action.”

Examples of some global and local views:

On this score, a large number of business experts from all over the world have expressed their views, recently. Some examples are as follows:

  • The former Chairman of Microsoft India reportedly advised the new ‘Modi Regime’ as follows:

“While the new government must work hard to make India more business friendly, it must not cave in to pressure on other vital matters. For instance, on intellectual property protection, there is enormous pressure from global pharmaceutical companies for India to provide stronger patent protection and end compulsory licensing. These are difficult constraints for a country where 800 million people earn less than US$ 2 per day.”

  • Maruti Suzuki, India’s largest car manufacturer, aircraft maker Boeing, global pharma major Abbott and technology leader Honeywell have reportedly just not supported India’s IP regime, but have strongly voiced that IPR regime of India is “very strong” and at par with international standards.
  • The Chairman of the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt also echoes the above sentiment by articulating, “I think Indian government should stay firm on the Patents Act, which we have agreed.”
  • Other domestic pharma trade bodies and stakeholder groups in India expect similar action from the ‘Modi Government’.

Who are against Indian IP regime?

By and large, American pharma sector and their well-paid lobbyists representing drug multinationals are the strongest critics of Indian Patents Act 2005. They allege that Indian IP law discriminate against US companies and violates global norms, severely affecting their investments in India.

Recent stand of India on unilateral US measures:

Just to recapitulate, on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

On this report, India responded by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US under their Trade Act 1974, to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement.

The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The Indo-US working group on IP:

The Indo-US high-level working group on IP would be constituted as part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF). The US-India TPF is the principal trade dialogue body between the countries. It has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama states:

“Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the TPF.”

This part of the Indo-US joint statement on IPR created almost a furore not just in India, but in other parts of the world too, interpreting that Prime Minister Modi has conceded ground to America on patents over patients.

IP experts’ expressed concerns even in the US:

Commenting on this specific move by the Obama Administration to push India on issues related to IP, even the independent American healthcare experts expressed grave concern.

Professor Brook K. Baker from the Northeastern University School of Law has reportedly said:

“This working group will give the US a dedicated forum to continue to pressure India to adopt TRIPS-plus IP measures, including repeal of Section 3(d) of the India Patents Act, adoption of data exclusivity/monopolies, patent term extensions, and restrictions on the use of compulsory licenses”.

Professor Baker further said:

“The US, in particular, will work to eliminate local working requirements that India is seeking to use to promote its own technological development…. The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

“FDI and innovation are also always rhetorically tied to strong IPRs despite inclusive evidence that typically shows that most low and middle-income countries do not benefit economically from IP maximization, since they are net importers of IP goods. It is also because the path to technological development is ordinarily through copying and incremental innovation – development tools that are severely undermined by IP monopoly rights and their related restrictive licensing agreements,” Baker elaborated.

Jamie Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International, an NGO working on knowledge governance also reportedly said:

“It is very clearly going to be used to pressure India to expand liberal grants of drug patents in India, and to block or restrain the use of compulsory licenses on drug patents.”

Has India conceded to American bullying?

On this backdrop, during Indian Prime Minister’s interaction with the President of the United States and his aids, it was reportedly decided to set up a high-level working group on IP, as a part of the TPF, to sort out contentious issues which have been hampering investments. This was interpreted by many experts that India has conceded to American bullying, as it apparently deviated from its earlier firm stand that the country would discuss IP issues only in multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).

No change in India’s position on patents:

Taking note of this humongous misunderstanding, on October 4, 2014, the Union Ministry of Commerce in an official clarification reiterated that during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to America:

  • There has been no change in India’s stated position on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
  • India has reaffirmed that the IPR legal regime in India is fully TRIPS-compliant.
  • A bilateral Innovation and Creativity Focus Group already exists in the Trade Policy Forum (TPF) since 2010. Any IP related issues have to be discussed by the United States only in the TPF. This group consults each other no less than twice a year on improving intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, enhancing awareness of intellectual property rights, fostering innovation and creativity, and increasing collaboration between American and Indian innovators.
  • The Indo-US joint statement issued now merely reiterates whatever has existed in the earlier Trade Policy Forum. IPR issues are critical for both the countries and India has been repeatedly raising the issue of copyright piracy and misappropriation of traditional knowledge with the US.
  • The US agreeing to discuss IPR issues through the bilateral mechanism of the Trade Policy forum is in fact a re-affirmation of India’s stand that issues need bilateral discussion and not unilateral action. The statement on the IPR issue will only strengthen the bilateral institutional mechanism.

Conclusion:

Most part of the above statement is indeed quite consistent to what happened even immediately before the Modi regime.

In September 2013, the Commerce Secretary and India’s Chief trade Negotiator, Rajeev Kher, while terming the decision by the US Trade Representative for not labeling India with its worst offender tag in IP as a ‘very sensible decision’, strongly defended India’s right to overrule patents in special cases to provide access to affordable innovative medicines to its 1.2 billion people.

Moreover, many recent judicial verdicts have vindicated that a strong and balanced patent regime of the country not just secures the bonafide rights of the patentee, but at the same time ensures genuine needs of the public and in case of pharma of the ailing patients.

The Indian Supreme Court judgment on Glivec of Novartis in the recent past, have re-established, beyond an iota of doubt, that to secure and enforce patents rights of genuine inventions, other than evergreening, India provides a very transparent IP framework.

Taking all these into consideration, it seems unlikely to me that Prime Minister Modi, who is a self-confessed nationalist and holds India’s interest first, would in any way compromise with the country’s TRIPS compliant patent regime, sacrificing millions of Indian patients’ health interest at the altar of American business needs.

The above official clarification by the Union Ministry of Commerce is expected to tame the fire of this raging debate to a great extent. However, the grave concern expressed in the following lines by the independent healthcare experts, such as Professor Baker, on the high-level IP working group, cannot just be wished away:

“The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

That said, from your government Mr. Prime Minister “Yeh Dil Maange Much More”.

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.