Tag Archives: Protection

India and China…Practical relevance of ‘Priority Watch List (PWL)’ status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America…and the REAL ‘Game Changers’

Posted on by
Reply

Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a totally different picture.

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

The Office of The United States Trade Representative, in the Press Release of ’2010 Special 301 report’, mentioned the names of PWL countries as follows:
“Trading partners on the Priority Watch List (PWL) do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection. China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela are on the Priority Watch List. These countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that so far as IPR environment is concerned both China and India feature in the PWL of America. This totally breaks the perceived myth, as is being very often made out to be by many, that China is a better implementer of IPR than India.
Reasons for featuring in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL):
“2010 Special 301 Report” makes the following comments for China and India being in the PWL of the USA:

China:
1. China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States…the overall level of IPR theft in China remains unacceptable.
2. The United States is heartened by many positive steps the Chinese government took in 2009 with respect to these issues, including the largest software piracy prosecution in Chinese history, and an increase in the numbers of civil IP cases in the courts.
3. The United States is also deeply troubled by the development of policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders by promoting “indigenous innovation” including through, among other things, preferential government procurement and other measures that could severely restrict market access for foreign technology and products.
4. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent.
5. The U.S. copyright industries report severe losses due to piracy in China.
6. Counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets.
7. China maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction into China’s market of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR.
8. China’s market access barriers create additional incentives to infringe products.
9. China adopts policies that unfairly advantage domestic or “indigenous” innovation over foreign innovation and technologies.
10. Draft Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards, released for public comment in November 2009 by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), raise concerns regarding their expansive scope, the feasibility of certain patent disclosure requirements, and the possible use of compulsory licensing for essential patents included in national standards.
11. With respect to patents, on October 1, 2009, the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law, passed in December 2008, went into effect. While many provisions of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rights holders have raised a number of concerns about the new law and implementing regulations, including the effect of disclosure of origin requirements on patent validity, inventor remuneration, and the scope of and procedures related to compulsory licensing, among other matters. The United States will closely follow the implementation of these measures in 2010.
12. The United States encourages China to provide an effective system to expeditiously address patent issues in connection with applications to market pharmaceutical products.
13. The United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products.
14. Generally, IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of government.

India:
1. India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010.
2. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR.
3. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts.
4. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.
5. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings.
6. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy.
7. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement.
8. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem.
9. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents.
10. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.
11. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.
12. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes.
13. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

Responses and reactions in India:
‘Special 301 Reports’ have always been received with skepticism both by the Government of India and the domestic media. Even in the past, PWL status has hardly bothered either India or China to bring in a radical change in the IPR environment of the respective countries, as desired by the USA.

A recent article on the ‘Special 301 Report 2010’ that appeared in ‘Business Standard’, Sunday, May 2, 2010 comments as follows:

“India, in fact, continues to be on the ‘priority watch list’ of the USTR’s ‘Special 301’ report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009”.

Many stakeholders in India feel and have also articulated that despite the country taking important steps to improve implementation of IPR within the country, the position of India in ‘Special 301 Reports’ has not changed much since last so many years. India, therefore, envisages no harsh measures by the US Government as a result of being continuously in the PWL of the ‘Special 301 Reports’.

Why then China attracts more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) than India in the Pharmaceutical space?

In my view, this has got not much to do with the IPR environment in these two countries. The key ‘Game Changers’ for China, I reckon, are as follows:

1. Larger market size due to greater access to medicines:
Access to medicine in China covers 85% of their 1.2 billion population, against 35% of 1.1 billion population of India.

2. Larger market size due to better affordability of medicine:

Around 85% of the population in China is covered through various medicine price reimbursement schemes. Whereas in India around 78% of such expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ expenses. Conversely, not more than 22% of the population is currently covered by drug price reimbursement schemes in India.

3. Strong signals to the Government that ‘innovative companies’ are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the country:

In such a booming pharmaceutical market scenario, it is essential for the business to keep the government engaged to help create a more ‘innovative pharmaceutical business’ friendly environment, where even a slight improvement in the prevailing IPR conditions will give a significant boost to their business performance.

IMS forecasts that by 2013 China is going to be the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world with an estimated turnover of US $66.7 billion against 13 ranking of India in the same league table, with an estimated turnover of US $15.5 billion.

Similar trend was observed in the immediate past, as well. As reported by IMS MAT September 2009, China registered a turnover of US $24 billion with 27.1% growth against US $7.7 billion with 12.9% growth of India, during the same period. IMS, based on their research data forecasts that during 2008-13 period, China will contribute 36% of the growth of the Asia Pacific Region, against 12% of India.

Under this situation, it appears quite prudent for the ‘innovative pharmaceutical companies’ to send signals to the Chinese Government that they are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the nation by making significant direct investments, obviously with an expectation to get more business friendly environment in that country.

Recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ in China has further improved its market attractiveness.

Thus the business attractiveness of China as a pharmaceutical market scores much higher than India, fetching more FDIs for them, prevailing IPR environment and PWL status in the ‘Special 301 Reports’ for the country not withstanding.

Conclusion:

Overall IPR environment in India, many experts strongly believe, does not seem to be much different from China, if not a shade better. While interacting with Chinese experts recently in that part of the world, I understand, ‘Data Protection’ is just ‘on paper’ in China, causing a huge issue for the innovator companies in that country. Similar situation prevails so far as the effectiveness of patent enforcement mechanism is concerned, where innovator companies are fighting and required to fight such infringement cases in the provincial level and in so many provinces of the country, posing a huge challenge to the patent holders.

So far as PWL status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ is concerned, it seems to have almost lost its relevance, as both India and China become stronger economies with increasing global dependence on them, consistently registering double digit or near double digit GDP growth.

In china, the pharmaceutical market attractiveness, its size and growth are driven by two key factors as mentioned above, viz, huge domestic market access/ penetration and better affordability of medicines through various effective medicine price re-imbursement schemes, across the country. The recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ of the country has added further momentum to this progress.

So long as India does not take robust policy measures, followed by their effective implementation to address, much ignored, the access and affordability issues of medicines for the common man, the country will continue to be a laggard, compared to China in the race of market leadership within the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan Ray

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

Regulatory Data Protection and Indian Interest

Posted on by
Reply

Of late, I read and hear raging debates, especially through media, on the relevance of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) or Data Exclusivity in India. This issue is being considered by many as a fight between the commercial interests of multinational and the domestic Indian companies. In this fight the provision for RDP is being highlighted as something, which is against our national interest.

In this scenario, I shall try to argue that in our country, on the contrary, a provision for a robust RDP mechanism, which will protect clinical trial data of ANY innovator both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, is in the best interest of India, at least, for the following four important reasons:

1. RDP to benefit even small to medium size domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies:

Small to medium size pharmaceutical companies in India, who do not have adequate wherewithal to get engaged in drug discovery research, will also be benefitted from RDP. They will be able to obtain data exclusivity for a specific period on the new clinical data that they will be generating for new fixed dose combinations (FDC), new medical uses and new formulations of medicines. This will help them create more resources to invest in R&D to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

2. RDP on traditional medicines to benefit Indian Pharmaceutical companies:

Rich reservoir of Indian traditional medicines, commonly categorized under Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha, are being used by a large majority of Indian populations over centuries. Such medicines are not protected by product patents, as such.

Further clinical development of these traditional medicines for greater efficacy and safety profile or newer usage, even if the ultimate product is not patentable, will help the common man immensely with affordable medicines.

The new clinical data generated by the researcher for such initiatives will be protected through RDP for a specific time period both against disclosure and unfair commercial use to make such efforts commercially viable and attractive.

RDP in this way can help the researcher to invest in the R&D of traditional plant based or similar medicines, which are not protected by any product patent. This in turn will help many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in less cost intensive R&D with a robust economic model, built around RDP or data exclusivity.

3. RDP to boost outsourcing of clinical trials to India:

As per CII, clinical trials market in India is currently growing at 30-35%. McKinsey estimated that EU and US based pharmaceutical companies will spend US$ 1.5 billion per year on clinical trials in India by 2010. Currently China with 5 year regulatory data protection in place is having significant edge over India in this area.

Many CROs have started making investments in India to create world class clinical trial facilities to encash this opportunity. Such investments, both domestic as well as in form of FDI, are expected to further increase, if an effective RDP mechanism is created within the country.

4. RDP to help Competition from China:

Despite some significant inherent weaknesses of China, as compared to India, in terms of a preferred global pharmaceutical business destination, China is fast outpacing India in R&D related activities. More number of global R&D based pharmaceutical companies has started investing quite significantly in China. One of the key reasons for such development is that China provides product patent, patent linkage and RDP, whereas India provides only product patent.

R&D based global pharmaceutical and biotech companies who want a robust IPR regime in the countries where they will invest more, therefore, prefer China to India in terms of FDI.

A robust RDP mechanism in India would help bridging this gap considerably.

Conclusion:

There is a widespread apprehension in some quarters in India that RDP will delay the entry of cheaper generic drugs in the country. This apprehension seems to be unfounded.

Unlike product patent, RDP will not provide any market exclusivity even within the specified period of RDP. Any generic manufacturer can generate its own regulatory data and obtain marketing approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to market a non patent related product in the country, just as in any developed market of the world. Thus RDP will not delay any generic entry into the market.

My final argument, if the provision for RDP or Data Exclusivity will delay the entry of cheaper generic medicines into India, why the same is not happening in the developed markets of the world like, USA, EU, Japan and even in China, despite having a robust provision for RDP or Data Exclusivity firmly in place in each of these countries?

Thus in my view, the provision for RDP in India is undoubtedly in the best interest of our country.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

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

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

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

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

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

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

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

THE REALITY:

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

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

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

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

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

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

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

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

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

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

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

2. Drug development:

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

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

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

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

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

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

RDP – The International Scenario:

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

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

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

RDP and the generics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

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

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

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

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

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

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

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

THE REALITY:

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

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

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

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

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

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

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

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

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

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

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

2. Drug development:

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

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

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

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

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

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

RDP – The International Scenario:

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

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

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

RDP and the generics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Why should India implement Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) – An analysis

Posted on by
Reply
To effectively address the healthcare needs of the nation and to improve access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population, just discovery of a New Chemical/Molecular Entity (NCE/NME) or a vaccine is not sufficient. The journey from mind to market is quite a long haul process, uncertain, expensive and a tortuous one.From patients, innovators or drug regulators perspective impeccable quality, high safety and efficacy standards of all drugs are absolutely essential. To achieve these critical objectives, volumes of regulatory data require to be generated through extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials.Just like Patent Regulatory Data also need to be protected to encourage innovation:

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

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

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

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

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

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

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

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

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

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

2. Drug development:

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

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

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

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

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

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

Benefits to the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

Research is a key driver for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Scientists prefer to work in research laboratories in those countries which provide full-fledged protection to IPRs. RDP is one of these Intellectual Property Rights. Reversal of brain drain and retention of scientific talents will be helpful to developing economies, like India to intensify R&D efforts.

Indian research based pharmaceutical companies, who are now globalising their business, are already engaged in partnerships with established foreign research based companies, as reflected in agreements between Ranbaxy and GlaxoSmithKline and earlier Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories with Novartis and Novo Nordisk. Our own scientists, therefore, need RDP to protect their Intellectual Property as many Indian pharmaceutical companies have substantially increased their investments towards R&D .

RDP – The International Scenario:

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

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

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

RDP and the generics:

A bogey is raised to create an impression that RDP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, resulting in the erosion of generics market. Possible decline in export market is also highlighted. This argument is based on invalid assumptions. The following facts will prove the irrelevance of these arguments propounded by the domestic generic lobby:

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

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

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

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

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

RDP is ‘evergreening’ – a myth:

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

A quick comparison with China:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is China different?

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

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

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

Where India scores over China:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way forward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

R&D and Protection of IPR related to Pharma sector, are now the responsibilities of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – a quick look at the initiatives taken by the department.

Posted on by
Reply
On July 2, 2008, the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India notified creation of a new department to be known as the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers with an objective to have a sharper focus on the Pharmaceuticals Industry of India. In that notification besides other important areas, Research and Development (R&D) and protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the Pharmaceutical sector, were brought under the newly created department.In this discussion let us try to have a look at the progress in both the R&D and IPRareas, separately.After creation of the new department, the Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, announced a proposed allocation of Rs. 10,000 crores (around US$ 2 billion), together with necessary regulatory reforms, towards annual Pharmaceutical R&D funding by the DoP.

The Government expects that such initiatives will help bringing in transformation of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry from brilliant and highly successful ‘imitators’ to world class ‘innovators’ of path breaking medicines. Discovery of such medicines in India is also expected to help the Government significantly, to improve access to affordable innovative modern medicines to the common man of the country. All these are no doubt, very laudable initiatives by the DoP, with a very capable, effective and a ‘can do’ leader at its helm.

The DoP plans to bring in significant changes in the clinical trial facilities available within the country. Currently even very basic clinical trials on ‘dogs’ cannot be undertaken because of protests from the activists related to ‘prevention of cruelty on animals’. Such reform measures, I am sure, will be sincerely welcomed by many.

It is interesting to note that the DoP is also planning to extend Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) to innovators. It has been reported that the invaluable data generated by the innovators towards development of the New Molecular Entity (NME) will, in near future, be protected from ‘piracy’ during 20 year patent life of the product. However, the DoP cautions that attempt to ‘evergreen patent’ through data protection, beyond the patent life of a product will not be permitted.

The argument of the innovators on this issue is that Product Patent and Clinical Data are two different types of intellectual properties and should not be considered as one and the same. While patent protection is extended for discovery of the molecule, data protection is for the immense and expensive clinical data that the innovators share with the Government for regulatory approval of the patented molecule, within the country. The argument that such valuable data generated by the innovators is an intellectual property (IP), lies in the premise that if the innovator would not have been required to part with the data with the regulatory authorities, such data would have been regarded as a ‘trade secret’, which is an IP. Therefore, the innovators argue that for sharing this IP with the Government, specific period of data protection to be extended to them, which should be unrelated to the life of the patent.

Thus far, we see that DoP has taken some very important and admirable initiatives to encourage R&D within the country. However, while looking at another important area of its responsibility i.e. protection of IPR within the Pharmaceutical sector, nothing has been announced by the department, as yet.

Encouraging R&D without effective protection of IPR, points towards an incomplete agenda to effectively address pharmaceutical product innovation related issues by the department. I sincerely hope that the DoP will soon announce its policy initiatives towards IPR protection to further encourage the innovators, both within and outside the country.

The DoP has taken some significant steps to address various important issues of the pharmaceutical industry under its terms of reference, within a very short period. I look forward to knowing from the DoP the detail initiatives in each of its nine functions and responsibilities, as announced in the notification of the cabinet secretariat on July 2, 2008.

By Tapan Ray

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