Tag Archives: section

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

  • ‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.
  • ‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

  • Does encourage new drug innovation
  • Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
  • Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
  • Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
  • Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

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.

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on by
Reply

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms.  There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

  • Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
  • Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:             

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

  • Take high price increases for the existing products
  • Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on  August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

  • Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
  • Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

  • Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”
  • Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”
  • Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

  • Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.
  • Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.
  • Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.
  • Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

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.

At The Indian IPR Front: ‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’

Posted on by
Reply

The incessant pressure of the developing countries on India, from 2005 to date, to include various restrictive conditions in the Indian Patents Act 2005, still continue. This demand spans across the inclusion of even those provisions, which many experts term as TRIPS-Plus, as these are not required by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. More interestingly, the pressure group also insists on the simultaneous deletion or dilution of some existing important provisions in the statute that guarantee public health interest of the nation.

This pressure is expected to mount in the G20 summit of September 4-5, which is now being held in China.

Refreshingly, on 30 August 2016, just ahead of this summit, the eminent economist Dr. Arvind Panagariya, who is also the incumbent Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog of India, and India’s Sherpa at the G20 summit reiterated, as follows, in an interview to a leading National English Business Daily:

“India has strongly opposed the language of the draft on Intellectual Property Protection (IPR) to be taken up at the upcoming G20 meeting in Beijing.”

In the interview, having re-emphasized the critical point that “there is a certain flexibility that we have under the TRIPS agreement and anything that dilutes that flexibility is not acceptable to India,” Dr. Panagariya clearly reaffirmed, yet again that ‘Indian IPR laws and policies are absolutely TRIPS compliant’.

This statement indeed sends a very positive signal to all on the ground, regarding the robust position maintained by the Government, to ward off any move by the overseas vested business interest to derail the flexibility that Indian well-balanced patent regime offers today, not just for public health, but also to foster innovation ecosystem in the country.

At the same time, India’s Sherpa at G20 summit also reportedly clarified that the IPR framework being proposed at the G20, in its strictest sense, cannot be construed as TRIPS-Plus. Nevertheless, some language used in the proposed G20 draft could be subject to interpretation, and India feels that it should not leave any room for ambiguity that has the potential to stretch this demand further, as we move on.

According to Dr. Panagariya: “Right now, these documents have some language where people in the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) feel that it impinges a bit. We have to fight it out at the summit.”

The basis of apprehension:

There are many reasons for the recent apprehension that India may buckle under the US pressure to dilute its IP laws and policies. One of the reasons could well be a possibility that India has come to an understanding with USTR in this area.

An interesting article published in the ‘spicyip’ on March 14, 2016 also captured this scenario pretty well. I am reproducing below in verbatim a paragraph of this paper, just as an example:

“Last month, the Indian government privately assured the US-India Business Council (“USIBC’’) that it would not invoke compulsory licensing for commercial purposes, as reported in their submissions (available here) to the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) for the 2016 Special 301 Review. The USIBIC stated that it would be “further encouraged” if the government of India were to make a public commitment, or a written declaration to only issue compulsory licenses in the event of public health emergencies, and not for commercial purposes. This, in their eyes, would “greatly enhance legal certainty for innovative industries”. While such a private assurance doesn’t give rise to any legal commitments, it may well be indicative of a policy shift.”

Prior to this, among many others, a March 3, 2016 ‘The Wire’ report captioned “India Assures the US it Will Not Issue Compulsory Licenses on Medicines”, also raised the same red flag.

The pressure continues even post engagement:

Be that as it may, America has been, repeatedly, raising its concerns over India’s patent regime, driven by its powerful pharma lobby groups.

To keep the kettle boiling, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in its 2016 Special 301 Report released this year on April 12, continued to keep India, along with 11 countries, on the Priority Watch List (PWL) for the current year.

USTR reportedly expressed serious concern about Indian IP policies stating that the regime apparently ‘favor’ indigenous manufacturing or Indian innovators. It also alleged that such direction ‘damages’ the patent infrastructure not just in India, but across the world.

It is believed by many that the Special 301 Report is, in fact, a formal posturing of the country on their unilateral IP related business hurdles for the year, exhibiting the power to implement unilateral trade sanctions when the US demands are not met.

In that context, the 2016 Special 301 Report caught many by surprise, as the Indian ‘IPR Think Tank’ (a body of the Union Government-selected experts) was also working closely with the United States to identify and address their issues of concern, such as, patent system, copyright infringement, trademark and counterfeiting, among others.

At that time, this discussion was possibly in its final stage as, just a month after, on May 12, 2016, the Union Cabinet approved the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR) of India, as proposed by the ‘Think Tank’, in consultation with, among others, especially the United States, which reportedly expressed its overall satisfaction with the final IPR policy.

Key concerns:

From the pharma industry perspective, the key IP concerns are centered, primarily, in the following three areas, besides a few others:

  • Patentability
  • Compulsory Licensing (CL)
  • Data Exclusivity

I would, therefore, concentrate briefly on these three areas to argue how reasonable is the Indian Patents Act 2005 to create a win-win situation both for the patients and the industry while fostering pharma innovation in the country.

Patentability:

One of their key concerns on patentability, revolves round an important provision in the statute – Section 3 (d).

Pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs), and their trade associations have been going overboard, since long, to lobby hard to make all concerned believe that section 3 (d) is a stumbling block for pharma innovation, as it does not allow patent protection on known chemical substances lacking any significant improvement in clinical efficacy.

This provision of the statute prevents ever-greening of patents with frivolous incremental innovation. Consequently, it blocks the possibility of pricing such ‘me too’ new molecules, exorbitantly, and persuading the prescribers of the existing molecule switching over to the new brand, backed by contentious marketing campaigns, adversely impacting affordability and access to the majority of the patients in India.

Notwithstanding the shrill voices of vested interests, Section 3 (d) has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the famous Glivec case of Novartis against Cipla.

The Submission of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to USTR for the Review of ‘2016 Special 301 Report’, categorically also states that the Indian Patent Act prescribes a higher threshold on inventive step for medicines, which is in keeping with the TRIPS Agreement, Paris Convention and the Doha Declaration. Hence, Section 3 (d) is sound in terms of the TRIPS, Public policy and Health policy.

Compulsory License (CL):

Besides the hard fact that India has, so far, granted just one CL in a span of more than the last ten years, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement related public health clearly provides the flexibility to all its member states to decide on the necessary grounds for granting CL. It is noteworthy that for public health interest, TRIPS flexibilities for CL has been used even by the developed countries, such as, Canada, United States and Germany, in the not too distant past.

Data exclusivity:

The terminologies ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Data Protection’ are quite often used interchangeably by many, creating a great deal of confusion on the subject. However, in a true sense these are quite different issues having a critical impact on the public health interest of a nation.

In an article published in ‘ipHandbook’, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift, a former Secretary, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health Organization; differentiated these two terminologies as follows:

Data Protection (DP): Protection of commercially valuable data held by the drug regulator against disclosure and unfair commercial use.

Data Exclusivity (DE): A time bound form of Intellectual Property (IP) protection that seeks to allow companies recouping the cost of investment in producing data required by the regulatory authority.

According to Charles Clift, Article 39.3 only articulates widely accepted trade secret and unfair competition law, and is not an invitation to create new IP rights, per se, for test data. Nor does it prevent outside parties from relying on the test data submitted by an originator, except in case of unfair commercial practices.

Some developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union have argued that Article 39.3 of TRIPS requires countries to create a regime of DE, which is a new form of time-limited IP protection. However, it is worth noting that in both these countries DE regime was adopted prior to the TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS-Plus’.

In its new IPR Policy, India has successfully resisted the demands of TRIPs-Plus provisions, such as, data exclusivity, patent linkage and patent-term extension.

Even the draft IPR policy had reiterated that India accepts: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

Any near-term possibility of a change in the statute?

While the new IPR Policy of India focuses on consolidating institutional mechanisms to create a robust IPR ecosystem in the country, besides resolving some pressing issues, such as, expediting approval processes involving patents or trademarks, it does not indicate any possible change in the important provisions in the Patents Act 2005, including the much talked about Section 3 (d) and compulsory licensing, despite concerns expressed by the US and pharma companies.

Moreover, a May 13, 2016 Press Trust of India (PTI) report on the Union Cabinet approval of Indian IPR Policy quoted a Government official, as follows, negating the apprehensions that the government may yield to the pressure of developed countries with regard to its IR regime:

“India will never go beyond its current commitments in the TRIPS. Section 3 (d), patent linkage, data exclusivity and compulsory licensing are red lines.”

On the same day and in the same context, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also reportedly stressed that India’s IPR policies are TRIPS-compliant and encourage invention of life-saving drugs, while at the same time, “we must also be conscious of the need to make it available at a reasonable cost so that drug cost does not become prohibitive as has become in some parts of the world”, he articulated, unambiguously.

Conclusion:

Despite all these developments, reiterations and interpretations, a lurking fear on India’s diluting the current patent regime of the nation was refusing to die down in the country.

Many experts were also quite apprehensive about what would be India’s stand on IP in the G 20 summit on September 4-5, currently being held in China.

Is it, then, just a storm in a tea cup on the ground?

This is not a very easy question to answer, though, as many industry watchers sense. Nonetheless, yet another emphatic statement on the subject coming from a top Government echelon and none other than Dr. Arvind Panagariya, the Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog and India’s Sherpa at G20 summit, possibly sends a clear message, at least for now, to all those holding ground in the Indian IPR front:

‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’.

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. 

On Serious Healthcare, Some Bizarre Decisions

Posted on by
Reply

On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported by the media that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Anant Kumar, would launch a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, on August 29, 2016.

This is an app developed by the National Informatics Centre, for android smartphones ‘that will enable patients to check the prices of essential medicines on-the-go’. It will be an extension of NPPA’s “Pharma Jan Samadhan” web-portal facility. The Indian price regulator believes that wide use of this app would successfully reduce the instances of overcharging the consumers by the pharma companies and retail chemists, especially for lifesaving, and other expensive medicines. 

India’s drug pricing watchdog is planning to introduce this app to enable the patients check the prices of essential medicines on-the-go, and expects that this measure will hold drug companies and medicine retail outlets more accountable to patients.

In the test version of the app, which has since been released for stakeholder feedback, patients can search for the ceiling price of all medicines under the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), on the basis of its generic name and the state they’re buying it from.

The Chairman of NPPA, reportedly, further said, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price. At present, whatever action we take against the companies, including recoveries, the consumer does not get back the overcharged amount he or she has paid.”

Good intent with a basic flaw:

The intent of the Government in this regard is indeed laudable. However, the initiative seems to underscore the blissful ignorance of the prevailing ground realities in India.

The media report highlights that with this app, the patients can search for the ceiling price of all medicines featuring in the NLEM on the basis of their generic names.

Whereas, the ground reality to make any meaningful use of this app is quite different. This is primarily because, in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), over 90 percent of drugs are branded generics. An overwhelming majority of the doctors, as well, follow this trend while writing prescriptions for their patients, in general. For any single ingredients or Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) formulation, there are as many as even 30 to 40 brands, if not more. 

In that case, when the prescriptions given to patients are mostly for branded generic drugs, how would that person possibly get to know their generic names, to be able to check their ceiling prices with the help of the new “Search Medicine Price” app?

Not just a solitary example: 

This is just not a solitary instance of ignorance of the Government decision makers on the realities prevailing in the country.

With an admirable intent of making drugs more affordable for increased access, especially, to all those patients incurring out-of-pocket health expenditure, the Government has been taking several such measures, and is also trying to create a hype around these. Unfortunately, most of these efforts, miss the core objective of increasing access to drugs at the right price, by miles. 

Another recent example: 

This particular example, in my view, is even more bizarre.

It happened on February 29, 2016, the day when the Union Budget proposal for the financial year 2016-17 was presented before the Parliament of India.

In this budget proposal, the Union Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’. 3,000 Stores under PMJAY will be opened during 2016-17.

Many consider this scheme as a repackaged old health care initiative, only adding the new words ‘Pradhan Mantri’ to it.

Just to recapitulate, Jan-Aushadhi is an ongoing campaign launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, in association with Central Pharma Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), to provide quality medicines at affordable prices to the masses.

Under this scheme, Jan Aushadhi Stores (JAS) are being set up to provide generic drugs, which are available at lesser prices, but are equivalent in quality and efficacy as expensive branded drugs.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals had initially proposed to open at least one JAS in each of the 630 districts of the country, so that the benefit of “quality medicines at affordable prices” is available to at least one place in each district of India.

If the initiative becomes successful, based on its inherent merit and the cooperation of all stakeholders, the scheme was to be extended to sub divisional levels as well as major towns and village centers by 2012. However, after 5 years, i.e. up to February, 2013, only 147 JAS were opened, and out of those only 84 JASs are functional. 

More recently, according to a June 02, 2015 report, “under the new business plan approved in August 2013, a target of opening 3,000 Jan Aushadhi stores during the 12th plan period i.e. from 2013-14 to 2016-17 was fixed. As per the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers report in March 2015, till date only 170 JAS have been opened, of which only 99 are functional.”

Tardy progress:

The tardy progress of the scheme was largely attributed to:

  • A lackluster approach of State governments
  • Poor adherence to prescription of generic drugs by doctors,
  • Managerial/ implementation failures of CPSU/ BPPI.
  • Only 85 medicines spread across 11 therapeutic categories were supplied to the stores and the mean availability of these drugs was found to be 33.45 percent, with wide variations across therapeutic categories. 

There is no doubt, however, the intent of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’ of 2016 is as laudable as the earlier “Jan-Aushadhi Scheme”, launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, was at that time. But, the moot question that comes at the top of mind:  Is it robust enough to work effectively in the present situation? 

Why it may not fetch the desired outcome?

Besides strong support from the State Governments, and other factors as enlisted above, making the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names would be a critical issue to make the “Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi scheme’ a success, primarily to extend desirable benefits to a sizeable section of both the urban and rural poor. Another relevant question that comes up now, how would the Government ensure that the doctors prescribe drugs in the generic names?

A critical challenge:  

Since, the generic drugs available from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ retail outlets are predominantly prescription medicines, patients would necessarily require a doctor’s physical prescription to buy those products.

Despite some State Government’s circulars to the Government doctors for generic prescription, and the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, that states: “Every physician should, as far as possible, prescribe drugs with generic names and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”, the doctors, in India, prescribe mostly branded generics. It includes even many of those prescriptions, generated from a large number of the Government hospitals.

The legal hurdle for generic substitution:

In a situation such as this, the only way the JAS can sell more for greater patient access to essential drugs, if the store pharmacists are allowed to substitute a high price branded generic with exactly the same generic molecule that is available in the JAS, without carrying any brand name, but in the same dosage form and strength, just as the branded ones. 

However, this type of substitution would be grossly illegal in India. This is because, the section 65(11)(c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20[(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21[Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]” 

Thus, I reckon, the most important way to make ‘Jan Aushadhi’ drugs available to patients for greater access, is to legally allow the retailers substituting the higher priced branded generic molecules with their lower priced equivalents, sans any brand name.

A move that did not work:

Moving towards this direction, the Ministry of Health had reportedly submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration.

In this proposal, the Health Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

Conclusion:

Considering all this, just as ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’, the likes of ‘Search Medicine Price app’, apparently, are not potentially productive health care related initiatives, if not just one-offs, ‘feel good’ type of schemes for the general population. 

These are not robust enough either, to survive the grueling of reality, impractical for effective implementation, and thus, seriously handicapped to fetch any meaningful benefits for the patients, on the ground.

It is, therefore, still unclear to me, how would the needy patients, and the Indian population at large, could derive any benefit from such bizarre decisions, on so serious a subject as health care.

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.

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on by
Reply

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever. 

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article: 

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust. 

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016. 

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:     

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

  • Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.
  • The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment. 

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure. 

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular. 

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India. 

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

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.

Indian Patents Act To Prevail Undiluted…Finally

Posted on by
Reply

Curiously enough, what a little birdie told me just a couple of weeks ago, very similar to that I read in various media reports even less than a week later.

It was related to a somewhat trepidatious national policy in the making on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India.

One major apprehension, besides a few others on this IPR Policy, was flying all over and nettling many. It was regarding the possibility of tweaking or dilution of the Indian Patents Act by the Government, coming under strong external pressure and also to get support on India’s food security in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Probably to douse this simmering fire of trepidation, well calibrated, unambiguous and reassuring narratives on the subject were unfolded recently by the Government, that too in a quick succession, which were somewhat as under.

On July 20, 2015, at an event organized by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reiterated that:

  • India’s IPR laws are quite in compliant with the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement.
  • There is no need for apprehension in any corner of the world as to what India’s patent regime is like.

The Minister also indicated at the same event that following a transparent process of drafting…and redrafting; the final blue print of the IPR policy has now been circulated to all concerned ministries for inter-ministerial consultations. After completion of that process soon, her Ministry would submit the final version to the Cabinet for approval.

It is now anticipated that by the end of this year the first ‘IPR Policy’ of India would be operational.

The creeping angst for a possible twitching in the country’s otherwise robust Patents Act, was mostly originated from a pointed recent utterance of Prime Minister Modi on this issue that we shall quickly explore in this article.

Another stronger assertion:

Immediately thereafter, while commenting on a related article published in an Indian business daily dated July 24, 2015, Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reasserted the following points even more emphatically and virtually in so many words:

  • India’s IPR laws are fully compliant with international obligations under the TRIPS agreement. This includes the Patents Act, 2005, whose provisions have time and again stood the test of judicial scrutiny.
  • There is no question of permitting ‘evergreening’ of patents, or of realigning our IPR laws to comply with US laws.
  • There is no question of sacrificing our IPR laws to get support from a particular country even on food security.

A brief background:

In October 2014, almost immediately after Prime Minister Modi’s return to India from the United States, the the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’, chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan, to draft the ‘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 in such reports and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce & Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders, continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing robust patent regime of India.

Taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, the Think Tank’ released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments. According to Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, “Different people, countries, including the United States and other organizations have already given their inputs on the draft policy.”

The new policy would focus on stronger enforcement of IPR by increasing the manpower in IP offices and reducing pendency of IPR filings. It aims at bringing clarity to the existing laws and making changes wherever required to safeguard the interests of Indian industry and patent holders worldwide.

I reviewed this subject in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective.

Most recent apprehension:

The most recent spark for the speculation of a possible dilution in the Indian Patents Act 2005, came from the April 24, 20015 media report that quoted Prime Minister Modi expressing his intent on the issue, seemingly going overboard, as follows:

“India’s patent laws should be brought on par with global standards to make Asia’s third largest economy a hub for outsourced creative services.”

The basic purpose of making such an apparently ambiguous statement may be construed as an attempt to attract more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) for the country.

Whatever it may be, this announcement of the Prime Minister sent a strong signal to many as an impending major shift in his Government’s thinking to move away from an otherwise robust and a decade old IPR regime in India, undoubtedly under intense external pressure.

The above pronouncement from an otherwise tough minded Prime Minister came as a bolt from the blue, as it were, to many stakeholders. This is mainly because; India has so far been maintaining in all forum that its IPR regime is fully TRIPS compliant and garnered enough international support from the experts in this area, including Nobel Laureates.

The Prime Minister made his intent even stronger, when he further elaborated his argument as under:

“If we don’t work towards bringing our intellectual property rights at par with global parameters, then the world will not keep relations with us. If we give confidence to the world on IPR, then we can become a destination globally for their creative work.”

Some American Government agencies reportedly lapped up Prime Minister Modi’s statement as they openly commented as follows:

“The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India expeditiously undertake this initiative”

Intriguing comment:

Prime Minister Modi’s comment in this regard that “India needs to bring its patent laws on par with global standards,” comes of rather intriguing to many domain experts, as TRIPS agreement is the only universally accepted ‘Global Standard’ for IPR. Even the new Government has reiterated that Indian patent regime is fully TRIPS compliant.

India welcomes and encourages innovation:

With the enactment of Patents Act 2005, India has demonstrated that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and pharma patents in particular, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

There are still some loose knots in the process of speedy resolution of all IP related disputes and creation of a desirable ecosystem for innovation in the country, that the new IPR Policy is expected to effectively address, soon.

Two fundamental changes that the US is looking for:

Leaving aside the peripheral ones, the following two are the center pieces where the United States would want India to dilute its Patents Act 2005 considerably:

  • Patentability for all types of innovation, including ‘me-too’ ones and evergreening of patents, which would delay entry of affordable generic drugs.
  • “Compulsory Licensing (CL)” provisions, other than during natural calamities.

The status today: 

Though the Prime Minister has not further spoken on this subject publicly, from the recent statements of the Union Minster of Commerce and Industry it seems rather clear that for greater public health interest, India has decided to keep its Patents Act undiluted, at least, for now.

The Union Government has distinctly explained its stand in the following two areas:

I. No…No, to ‘Evergreening’ of patents in India:

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet are as expensive, if not more than the original ones.

In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

“Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.”

The study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:

  • Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘evergreening’ pharmaceutical patents that can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.
  • Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive steps are used to grant patents.
  • Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.
  • Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

Indian Patents Act under its section 3(d), discourages the above practices for public health interest. This particular provision, though absolutely TRIPS compliant is not followed in the developed markets, predominantly for commercial reasons. Hence the mounting pressure is on India for its major dilution.

II. Compulsory License (CL) provisions would stay to prevent misuse and abuse:

This is another major safeguard provision for the patients against abuse and misuse of patents, including obscene price tags of patented drugs, non-working of patents as a commercial strategy, limited availability, besides extreme urgency and some other situations. Though TRIPS very clearly allows all such provisions, India has so far granted just one CL.

With these India has amply demonstrated that CL provisions are important safeguards for the country and not for abuse or misuse by any one, including the Government. Moreover, it has to pass the acid test of rigorous judicial scrutiny that includes the Supreme Court of India.

Despite all these, more scares are being created around CL provisions in India than what is the reality in the country.

Various safeguards and deterrents against misuse and abuse of patents are absolutely essential for public health interest. Hence there is naturally no question of going back from such provisions in the statute.

It is worth noting, if Indian Patent regime is not TRIPS compliant, why hasn’t any country complained against India to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for having all these provisions in the Indian Patents Act, as yet?

India shows the new IPR way:

According to available reports, the following countries are coming closer to the Indian pharma patent regime:

  • Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents
  • Peru, Columbia and some other South American countries have placed curbs
  • Philippines has similar provisions
  • South Africa is contemplating to incorporate such steps
  • Australia is deliberating on making the law tougher

Positive reverberations in the domestic pharma sector:

Home grown pharma players seem to be visibly happy too, as the overall stand of the Government in this regards is getting clearer.

This in many ways gets vindicated, when a promoter, chairperson and managing director of a mid-size Indian Pharma and Biotech company, with high media visibility, reportedly comments on the finalization of Indian IPR Policy as follows:

“There is a need to protect interest and disallow monopolies like big pharma or big companies/corporates that want to invest and take advantage of the Indian market.”

Concerns of some ‘Who’s Who’:

The following is just an example of such concern:

On February 10, 2015,  the Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, made the following comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’:

“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.”

As things stand today, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz’s worst apprehension on the Indian Patent regime, in all probability would not come true.

Conclusion:

For quite some time, Indian Government has been under intense nagging from the United States, other developed countries, many drug MNCs and the pharma lobby groups lavishly funded by them; to effect major changes in the Patents Act of the country that currently denies unreasonable commercial exploitations, in many ways. Section 3(d) of the statute is just one of the key examples.

The browbeaters of such ilk keep pontificating the importance of ‘innovation’ and that too with a condescending undertone, as if the Indian Government is blissfully ignorant about it.

They allegedly want the Government to dilute the robust safeguard provisions of Indian Patents Act, trying to unfairly tilt the balance of justice in their favor. Consequently, it would go against the patients’ health interest by considerably delaying entry of cheaper generic equivalents, of ‘me-too’ type of inventions, in the country.

Despite initial apprehensions based on the possible misconstrued observation of the Prime Minister Modi on this issue, clear and unambiguous recent assertions of the Government on the patent regime of India, especially in the ‘count-down’ days of the new IPR Policy announcements, is reassuring. It goes without saying, this cannot happen without the benediction of India’s all-powerful Prime minister.

As stated in the draft document, let us hope that the new IPR Policy would help establishing a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.

Under this backdrop, it now emerges almost indubitably that Indian Patents Act 2005 would continue to prevail undiluted much to the dismay of its fiercest critics…Finally?

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.

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Posted on by
Reply

Media reports are now abuzz with various stories related to intense pressure being created by Big Pharma on the United States Government to declare India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’ for initiating ‘Trade Sanctions’.

As we know, ‘Priority Foreign Country’ is the worst classification given by the United States to “foreign countries” that deny “adequate and effective” protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or “fair and equitable market access” to the US.

One of the key factors that infuriated Big Pharma is the ‘patentability’ criterion of the Indian Patents Act 2005 captured in its section 3(d).  This denies grant of patent to those inventions, which are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy, offering no significant treatment advantages over already existing drugs.

A brief perspective:

The sole requirement for any company to enjoy market monopoly with a medicine, for a specific period, with its associated commercial advantages, is obtaining a valid patent for that new drug substance from a competent authority of the concerned country. Marketing approval process and other requirements for the same of the drug regulators do not come in the way of the market monopoly status granted to patented products.

This is mainly because the drug regulators do not require to be convinced that a new drug is an improvement or more effective than the existing ones. As a consequence of which, there has been no compulsion for the Big Pharma to bring to the market only those New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that would significantly improve efficacy of a disease treatment benefitting the patients.

Choosing the easier path:

Developing any NME that is a breakthrough in the treatment of a disease is not just difficult and time consuming, it is very risky too. For this reason, once a new innovative drug gets well established in the market, many companies decide to produce their own versions of the same and obtain patent rights for the new ‘tweaked’ molecules, as is generally believed by many.

This approach of bringing ‘me-too’ types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs into the market is considered much less risky, takes lot lesser time in the R&D process, not as expensive and most importantly, enjoys all the commercial benefits that a break through NME would otherwise derive out of its invention, especially the market monopoly with free pricing.

In his well-known book titled ‘Bad Pharma’, Ben Goldacre stated that, as very often these ‘me-too’ drugs do not offer any significant therapeutic benefits, many people regard them as wasteful, an unnecessary use of product development money, potentially exposing trial participants to unnecessary harm for individual companies commercial gain, rather than any medical advancement.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-too’ molecules:

Examples of some of the ‘me-too’ molecules are as follows:

  • Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)
  • Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)
  • Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

Goldacre further highlighted in his book that despite this fact, pharma market does not behave accordingly. Unlike usual expectations that multiple competing drugs in the same disease area would bring the prices down, a Swedish data showed that the drugs considered by the US-FDA as showing no advantages over the existing ones, enter the market at the same or even at higher prices than the original ones. Consequently, the outcome of such innovations adversely impacts the patients and the payor including the government, as Big Pharma takes full advantage of market monopoly and free pricing for such drugs in the garb of innovation.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-gain’ molecules:

Unlike the above ‘me-too’ drugs, which are new molecules, though work in a similar way to the original ones, another kind of patented drugs have now come-up in a dime a dozen.

Goldacre defined those drugs as ‘me-again’ drugs. These are the same molecule re-launched in the same market at the same price with a different patented ‘enantiomer’. Each of a pair of such molecules is a mirror image of each other e.g. esomeprazole (Nexium) is the left-handed version of the omeprazole molecule (Prilosec), which is a mixture of both left and right handed forms.

There is no dramatic difference between omeprazole and esomeprazole in any respect. Moreover, it is worth noting that concerned constituents of Big Pharma come out with ‘me-again’ drugs only at the end of the patent lives of the original ones. What then could be the reason?

Some examples of ‘me-again’ drugs are as follows:

Enantiomer/Brand Medical Condition Original Drug/Brand
Levocetirizine (Vozet) Allergies Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
Escitalopram (Lexapro) Depression Citalopram (Celexa)
Esomeprazole (Nexium) Acid reflux Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Desloratadine (Clarinex) Allergies Loratadine (Claritan)
Pregabalin (Lyrica) Seizures Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Why do the doctors prescribe such drugs?

That is indeed a good question, why do the doctors prescribe such costly, avoidable and so called ‘innovative’ drugs? Well, don’t we know that already?

Section (3d) plugs the loophole:

To discourage market entry of high priced and avoidable ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of drugs that are also an outcome of so called pharma ‘innovations’, the Indian law makers very wisely introduced the section (3d), while amending the Indian Patents Act in 2005. This section, as indicated above, categorically states that inventions that are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable. This law has also passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India in the Glivec case of Novartis.

With this Act, India has unambiguously reiterated that it does not support the grant of patents for inventions that are minor modifications of the original ones, effectively blocking the usual path of patents grant as followed by Big Pharma across the world to enjoy monopolistic commercial advantages of ‘frivolous’ innovations, as called by many experts in this area.

Consequent ire of Big Pharma:

This above action of Indian law makers has raised the ire of Big Pharma, as it has a huge commercial interest to protect ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of innovations in India, even if that comes at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Section (3d) of the Indian Patents Act, therefore, became a major hindrance in meeting the commercial goals of its constituents in India, as such molecules constitute a large majority of the total number of NMEs innovated globally.

As intense power-packed advocacy campaigns of the global pharma companies with the Government of India did not yield any meaningful result to get the section 3(d) amended, it unleashed the might of its well funded lobby groups having free access to the corridors of political power to play hardball with India, riding the horse of innovation and pooh-poohing patients’ interests.

Playing hardball:

The question therefore arises, would India tactfully reciprocate playing hardball or give in to the pressure of trade sanctions under ‘Priority Foreign Country’ categorization of the United States?

I reckon India would not give in. To state more emphatically, India just cannot give in now, under any circumstances.

Come May 16, 2014, the new Union Government of India would almost be ready take its position on the saddle. Thereafter, even if it prefers to give in to intense US political pressure just to avoid trade sanctions, in all practicality that would virtually be a non-starter. This is because, the new Government would unlikely to be in a position to garner enough votes in the Parliament to amend the section (3d), ignoring the general sentiment on this important public health related issue and political compulsions of many of its constituents on the subject.

Would America go to WTO?

Would the United States of America ultimately complain against India in the multilateral forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO) for alleged violation of the TRIPS Agreement? That is exactly the question that many people are asking today.

In this context it is worth noting, India has reiterated time and again that Indian Patents Act 2005 is in full compliance of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration of 2001.

Since, no country has complained to WTO against India on this issue, as yet, despite so much of posturing and the noise generated the world over, it appears improbable that the US would now do so, though Big Pharma would continue playing hardball raising the same old bogey of protection of ‘innovation’ in a much higher pitch, cleverly camouflaging its hardcore vested commercial interests.

What happens, if WTO decides in favor of India?

In the multilateral forum, if the WTO decides in favor of India, there is much to loose for Big Pharma.

In that scenario, the Indian example would encourage a large number of countries to enact similar model of Patents Act fully complying with the TRIPS agreement, as vetted by the WTO.

Some has termed it as a refreshingly fresh “Alternative Model of Patent Law’, going away from the dominant IP model as is being propagated by the US.

As I had indicated in the past, countries like the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favoring this alternative model that favors protection of Intellectual Property (IP) and at the same time promotes access to new inventions to a large majority of the global population.

Conclusion:

I reckon, Big Pharma’s playing hardball with India, riding the horse of ‘innovation’, could ultimately boomerang.

The Government of India, irrespective of any political color, lineage or creed, is unlikely to be bullied by Big Pharma constituents any time soon.

More importantly, even in a worse case scenario, the Government would be incapable of getting the section (3d) amended by the Indian Parliament garnering majority of the lawmakers’ support and going against strong political and public voices on this issue.

Nevertheless, Big pharma would continue to wish it to happen… and that drags me to the good old saying:

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

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.

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known 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.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d): 

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.” 

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an  injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

  1. Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
  2. Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
  3. Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
  4. Development of the R&D capacity and expertise
 of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
  6. Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that    over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor: 

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented,  “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young  India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of 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.