Tag Archives: World

‘Utility Models’: A process of winning in the world of innovation

Posted on by
Reply

On May 13, 2011 the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) uploaded in their website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models (UM)”. It was reported that as a policy initiative on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the present strict criteria for patentability, this discussion paper intends to trigger a healthy national debate on a very relevant subject.

Benefits of UM:

A publication titled, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries by International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, Switzerland highlights the following benefits of the UM:

• Fosters local innovation for local industries to produce more goods and generate more employment.

• Protects valuable inventions which otherwise would not be protected under the patent law of the country.

• Prevents free-riding of inventions by copiers who do not make any investment in R&D.

• Generates additional revenue for the government in terms of fees towards registration, search, publication, etc.

• Acts as a source of valuable information via published specifications.

• Reduces incentives for industry to lobby for the inclusion of minor inventions in the patent regime, which in turn would limit the public domain much more than the less expansive utility model system.

Does India need UM Laws?

Though India is fast emerging as a global economic power to reckon with, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) of the country still do not have adequate resources and wherewithal to invest in various R&D projects in the right scale. Thus many of them are unable to come out with the types of inventions, which would have global potential and also conform to the prevailing Patents Act of India (2005).

Moreover, even today the benefits of acquiring ‘Intellectual property (IP)’ in the business process is still not widely understood and made use of, across various Indian industries. The requisite culture, appropriate ecosystem and thereby a groundswell for innovation are yet to take shape in our country.

Imitating or copying something new developed within or outside India is the order of the day in most of the industries in India. As the UM would require neither a high-tech infrastructural support nor high level of investments, coming out with a commercially relevant innovation with limited exclusivity period may not be as difficult, especially, by the MSME sector of India. UM could thus effectively help creating both an appropriate ecosystem and groundswell for innovation in the country.

As indicated in the DIPP Discussion Paper, many countries of the world like, Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea, Netherlands and others still find the UM as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

Utility models in some countries:

As indicated in the above DIPP Discussion Paper, I am quoting below examples of UM being practiced in some important countries:

COUNTRY DATE OF FIRST LAW DURATION OF PROTECTION NAME SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION
AUSTRALIA 1979/2001 8 years Innovation Patent no
AUSTRIA 1994 10 years Utility Model no
BELGIUM 1987 6 years Short Term Patent no
BRAZIL 1945 10 years Utility Model yes
CHINA 1985 10 years Utility Model no
FRANCE 1968 6 years Utility Certificate no
GERMANY 1891 10 years Gebrauchsmuster no
INDONESIA 1991 5 years Simple Patent yes
ITALY 1934 10 years Utility Model no
JAPAN 1905 not > 15 years Utility Model no
KOREA 1961 not > 15 years Utility Model yes – but deferred
MALAYSIA 1986 15 years Utility Innovation yes
MEXICO 1991 10 years Utility Model yes
NETHERLANDS 1995 6 years Short Term Patent no

(Source: Petty Patents by John Richards – updated version of Proceedings of the Fordham University School of Law International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference 1995,Juris Publishing and Sweet & Maxwell, 1998).

Therefore, keeping in mind of the needs of, especially, the MSME sector, I reckon, the UM should be seriously considered by the Government for expeditious implementation. As stated earlier, the UM would enable a large section of smaller entrepreneurs to get a limited commercial exclusivity for their inventions, which otherwise would not have been possible by them within the current patent regime of India.

Moreover, such inventions being incremental in nature, subsequent inventions would be triggered much faster with a cascading effect on continuous innovation in the country.

In this scenario, it will be very important to keep the registration cost for the UM within affordable limits by the Indian Patent Offices (IPO).

Scope of protection:

I reckon, all types of inventions, including mechanical and chemical ones, should be covered under the UM. If this does not happen the UM law will only be useful to a small section of the entrepreneurs.

Further, a large number of useful developments and improvements that may fall short of requirements of getting patents, could be well accommodated under the UM to encourage more and more innovations for rapid economic growth of the country.

In case of chemical or pharmaceutical innovations there will also be a chance for the smaller players to apply for the UM for incremental innovation, when such inventions would not pass the stringent qualifying criteria of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. I hasten to add that some contentious issues could possibly crop-up in this area, which needs to be resolved with well informed debates.

I would recommend that in India UM may be considered for innovations in areas of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, devices, tools, working instruments or apparatus with appropriate qualifying standards.

Parameters for consideration:  

The inventive threshold for the UM would obviously be less than what is required by the patent laws of India. These should be very clearly enunciated by the policy makers without ambiguity whatsoever. However, the product novelty criteria in no case should be compromised, which should be similar to patents.

The period of exclusivity for UM varies internationally, for example, from 5 years in Indonesia to 10 years in China and 15 years in Korea. In India, the protection period should not ideally exceed 5 to 7 years from the date of grant of the UM with a much simpler registration process than the patent.

Section 8(1) of Patents Act may be suitably amended to include provision of UM. At the same time, providing details of corresponding UMs, along with related patent applications, if any, should be made mandatory.

An innovator should be allowed to apply for both patent and UM together. However, when only an application for patent will be filed and after scrutiny, if the same does not qualify for grant of patent, the concerned applicant may be allowed to convert the same application into UM, without any adverse impact on priority.

It is important to ensure that filing of a new UM nearer end of the term of patent is not allowed. The patent may, in such cases, be regarded as prior art by the IPO. Moreover, any provision for temporary protection of an invention as an UM pending grant of a patent should not be included in the legislation. Patent grant is usually a slow process in India, which quite often gets caught in the quagmire of delays and backlogs. In such a scenario, if any temporary exclusivity is granted by way of UM to the applicant, the entire patent processing system may get further slowed down.

Promoting domestic filings by MSMEs:

There does not seem to be any need to provide any specific provision to promote domestic filing by the MSMEs other than by way of providing for express provisions of disposal of infringement actions or other related contentious issues.  Specific non-extendable time frames should be provided for all.

Currently the Courts in India have very little exposure to IP laws. Keeping this in mind UM laws should have simple wordings, free of ambiguity enunciating specific measures in case of infringement. Any invalidity should be clearly spelt out to avoid unnecessary appeals and unproductive, protracted and expensive litigation process.

To make Indian industries feel and understand the need for the protection/exclusivity for the UM, suitable awareness campaigns should be designed and championed by the government and the industry bodies with a focused approach to achieve this goal within a given timeframe.

UM and Traditional knowledge:

Traditional knowledge is something, which is already available or known to public at large and any protection to such knowledge would deny the civil society its legitimate rights in India. Thus, I shall strongly recommend that no exclusivity is granted to any person or industry on traditional knowledge.

However, rights to traditional knowledge may be provided through a different fail-proof mechanism to safeguard the interest of specific communities in India, who have inherited such knowledge through practice for generations.

The enforcement mechanism:

The enforcement mechanism for the UM should be similar to the Patent System or else a special ‘Utility Model Appellate Board (UMAB)’ may be considered for speedy redressal of infringement disputes.

Obviating monopolistic dominance:

Compensation / royalty rather than other methods of restrain could be a better option as most applicants would be MSMEs.

The UM law makers should, however, bear in mind that individual innovators although will have remedy within the law in case of a breach, due to sheer practical considerations, could at times feel helpless when a rich licensee will fail to compensate or pay royalty as per the order of a Court of law.

I would, therefore, suggest that there should be specific clauses in the UM law, which will be strong deterrent to such behaviour by unscrupulous elements, for example, payment of the compensation in an amount exceeding about 15 to 20 times of the original award in the event of default for no good reason. However in such a case the appropriate value may be properly decided to effectively avoid any attempt of ‘extortionary measures’ by anyone.

Conclusion:

It is believed by many that the UM framework with a lower threshold of invention will be able to encourage domestic incremental innovation in many areas of business. Thus, by providing protection to UM for about 5 years vis-a-vis 20 years, as provided by the patents, India can further stimulate the process of innovation, while discouraging monopolies in the country.

I reckon, a suitably designed UM framework will immensely encourage the domestic players to seek protection and obtain exclusivity for continuous incremental innovation in various facets of their respective businesses.

This process, in turn, will promote innovation based commercial business models within the country by offering low cost and affordable innovative products to the common man, adding simultaneously speed to the wheel of economic progress of the nation with inclusive growth.

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.

Open Innovation: Quo Vadis, Pharmaceutical R&D?

Posted on by
Reply

Is the Pharmaceutical R&D moving from the traditional models to much less uncharted frontiers?

Perhaps towards this direction, in November, 2010 in a report titled, “Open Source Innovation Increasingly Being Used to Promote Innovation in the Drug Discovery Process and Boost Bottomline”, Frost & Sullivan underscored the urgent need of the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective Research and Development initiatives, in general.

‘Open Innovation’ model, they proposed, will be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process.  Currently, on an average it takes about 8 to 10 years to bring an NCE/NME to market with a cost of around U.S$ 1.7 billion.

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used by the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades all over the world, including in India.  Web Technology, the Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ – the open source mobile OS, are excellent examples of ‘Open source innovation’ in IT.

In the sphere of Biotechnology Human Genome Sequencing is another remarkable outcome in this area.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam commented, “Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) explores new models of drug discovery”. He highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source philosophy’ by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world. In today’s world ‘Open Innovation’ in the pharmaceutical R&D has a global relevance, especially, for the developing world of ‘have-nots’.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model: 

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. The licensing arrangement of OSDD where both invention and copyrights will be involved, are quite different from any ‘Open Source’ license for a software development.

In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source.

As stated earlier, ‘Open Innovation’ concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where a large number of scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. However, this innovation process was first used to understand the mechanics of proteins by the experts of the Biotech and pharmaceutical industries.

The Objectives of ‘Open Innovation’: 

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is to encourage drug discovery initiatives, especially for the dreaded disease like cancer and also the neglected diseases of the developing countries to make these drugs affordable to the marginalized people of the world.

Key benefits of ‘Open Innovation’:

According to the above report of Frost & Sullivan on the subject, the key benefits of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals will include:

• Bringing together the best available minds to tackle “extremely challenging”   diseases

• Speed of innovation

• Risk-sharing

• Affordability

Some issues:

Many experts feel that the key issues for ‘Open Innovation’ model are as follows:

  • Who will fund the project and how much?
  • Who will lead the project?
  • Who will coordinate the project and find talents?
  • Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

However, all these do not seem to be an insurmountable problem at all, as the  saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

Current Global initiatives for ‘Open Innovation’:

  1. In June 2008, GlaxoSmithKline announced in Philadelphia that it was donating an important slice of its research on cancer cells to the cancer research community to boost the collaborative battle against this disease. With this announcement, genomic profiling data for over 300 sets of cancer cell lines was released by GSK to the National Cancer Institute’s bioinformatics grid. It has been reported that over 900 researchers actively contribute to this grid from across the industry, research institutes, academia and NGOs. Many believe that this initiative will further gain momentum to encourage many more academic institutions, researchers and even smaller companies to add speed to the drug discovery pathways and at the same time make the NCEs/NMEs coming through such process much less expensive and affordable to a large section of the society, across the globe.
  2. The Alzheimer’s  Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is another example of a Private Public Partnership (PPP) project with an objective ‘to define the rate of progress of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease, develop improved methods for clinical trials in this area and provide a large database which will improve design of treatment trials’. 
  3. Recently announced ‘Open invitation’ strategy of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to discover innovative drugs for malaria is yet another example where GSK has collaborated with European Bioinformatics Institute and U.S. National Library of Medicine to make the details of the molecule available to the researchers free of cost with an initial investment of US $ 8 million to set up the research facility in Spain involving around 60 scientists from across the world to work in this facility.

‘Open Innovation’ in India: 

In India, Dr. Samir Brahmachari, the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India OSDD will help the common man to meet his unmet medical needs in the areas of neglected tropical diseases.

‘Open Innovation’ project of CSIR is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

To fund this initiative of the CSIR the Government of India has allocated around U.S $40 million and an equivalent amount of funding would be raised from international agencies and philanthropists.

Success of ‘Open Innovation’ initiative of CSIR: 

Sometime in late November 2009, I received a communication from the CSIR informing that their OSDD project, since its launch in September 2009, has crossed 2000 registered users in a very short span of time. The pace of increasing number of registered users indeed reflects the confidence that this initiative has garnered among the interested researchers across the world.

CSIR has indicated that the next big leap planned by them in the area of ‘Open Innovation’ is to completely re-annotate the MTb genome for which they have already launched a project titled ‘Connect to Decode’ 2010.

Conclusion: 

Currently pharmaceutical R&D is an in-house initiative of innovator global companies. Mainly for commercial security reasons only limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to these projects.

‘Open Innovation’ on the other hand, has the potential to create a win-win situation, bringing in substantial benefits to both the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients.

The key advantage of the ‘Open Innovation’ model will be substantial reduction in the costs and time of R&D projects, which could be achieved through voluntary participation of a large number of researchers/Scientists/Institutions in key R&D initiatives. This in turn will significantly reduce the ‘mind-to-market’ time of more affordable New Chemical/Molecular Entities in various disease areas.

Thus, to answer to ‘Quo Vadis, Pharmaceutical R&D’, I reckon, ‘Open Innovation’ model  could well be an important direction for tomorrow’s global R&D initiatives to improve access to innovative affordable Medicines to a larger number of ailing patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs, more effectively and with greater care.

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.

My thoughts on the world IPR day, April 24

Posted on by
Reply

Ushering in the Product Patent Regime in India, effective January 1, 2005, heralds the dawn of a new era… an era that is expected to add speed to the wheels of progress of the nation. The new paradigm vindicates the importance of encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation to meet the unmet needs of the population. At the same time this change instills new hope in our mind that India will now compete with the bests in the world, more innovatively and effectively, to curve out a significant share of the global economy.

Criticism continues, unfortunately though…

However, it is quite unfortunate that the pharmaceutical product patents that protect today’s innovations and drive research and development to create tomorrow’s life-saving treatments, are under criticism from some quarters. India chose to follow an alternative to Product Patent regime for many years. In 1970, the Government of India amended its IP laws with a clear objective in mind to reduce the prices of medicines to improve their access to the ailing population of the country.

A panacea:

As a result, some drugs were made cheaper. However, the moot question that we need to address now: was it a panacea? While looking back, it does not really appear so. On the contrary, the situation remained as gloomy thereafter, so far as the access to medicines is concerned. After almost four decades of continuation with the above policy, around 65% of Indian population still does not have access to cheaper off-patent medicines against comparative figures of 47% in Africa and 15% in China.

Children still go without routine vaccinations, though the Government has made the primary vaccination programs free in our country, for all. Even in a situation like this, where affordability is no issue, only about 44% of infants (12 – 23 months) are fully vaccinated against six major childhood diseases – tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio and measles. Moreover, as we know, despite distribution of cheaper generic HIV AIDS drugs by the Government and others mostly free for years, only 5% cent of India’s AIDS patients were receiving any drugs by the end of 2006.

The above two important examples prove the point very clearly that addressing the issue of price alone will not help our country to solve the issue of poor access to medicines to the ailing population of India. Only a sharp focus on rejuvenation of our fragile healthcare delivery system, healthcare financing and rapid development of healthcare infrastructure of the country by the Government or through Public Private Partnership (PPP), will help address this pressing issue.

 

Paving way for innovation…issues of affordability and access need to be addressed differently :

Indian Patents Act 2005 has paved the way for innovation and hi-tech research and development within the country. Contrary to adverse forecasts from some quarters, prices of medicines have not gone up.

However, while medicines play a relatively small role in rising overall healthcare spending including hospitalization, it is important to ensure that individuals with large healthcare expenses have affordable access to required medicines. Thus a good affordable insurance coverage (both Government and Private) available to all Indians belonging to various socio-economic strata, together with the above measures, will help address the key issues of both access and affordability of medicines to all, in a holistic way.

IPR regime…is it more robust in China?

India is continuously compared with China in various parameters both within and outside the country. It is known to all that China is now attracting more Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), be it Pharmaceutical R&D or Clinical developments of the new drugs. The moot question is why?

India restricts incremental innovation with section 3(d) of the Patents Act, but China has no such restrictive provisions. India does not protect regulatory data of the innovators, but China does. India does not have any patent linkage system with the marketing approval of the generic versions of the patented molecules, but China has put in place such system in their country.

With all these has India been able to improve affordability and access to medicines better than China or as even much as China? No, unfortunately, it has not. In China about 85% of the population has access to medicines, in India the equivalent figure will read as just 35%. Why then are such restrictions in the Patents Act of India? Have the drug prices gone up disproportionately in India post 2005? No… Not really. Unfortunately, the share of voice of the generic industry on these issues being much shriller, the voice of the innovator companies, be it Indian or global, is getting lost in the din, on all these important issues.

Conclusion:

The attack on patents is not a defense of patients or the poor. Such attacks help diverting attention from the core healthcare issues, as mentioned above. Health of our nation will depend on how well these key issues are being addressed by the policy and decision makers. Our country cannot afford to ignore the fact that intellectual property is one of the keys to prosperity of a great nation like India and it should be encouraged, protected and rewarded under a robust patents act of the country for inclusive growth.

By Tapan Ray

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

The top 10 environment polluters of the world should now transform themselves into the top 10 saviours of the world from the disaster of Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

Global awareness dawned early:

After World War the second, various types of atmospheric pollution started drawing increasing public attention in the western world, both in the USA and Europe.

In Europe, the incidence of London’s ‘Great Smog’ in 1952 initiated the process of bringing in ‘The Clean Air Act’ in 1956. This Act is believed to be one of the first legislations on environment in the world. Similarly in the USA in 1969 ‘The National Environment Policy Act’ was passed by the US Congress.

As we know, globally environmental pollution takes place mainly through carbon emission related to various developmental activities like construction, manufacturing, mining, motor vehicles, aircrafts; combustion equipment etc. All such emissions are gradually assuming alarming proportions.

Though CO2 is absolutely essential for photosynthesis of plant life, its raised level through the above developmental activities, very often adversely impacts the protective ozone layer of the earth triggering the process of climate change.

Sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 has also been shown to critically affect the sea water by increasing its acidity level, which in turn could endanger the marine ecosystem.

The key question:

Therefore, the moot question now is how to balance various developmental activities related to social and economic progress of nations with the preservation of global natural ecosystems.

Top 10 environment polluters of the world:

As per recent reports the top 10 environment polluters of the world are as follows:

1. China: Emits maximum CO2 of 6,018 million tonne. However, in terms of per capita emission, with 4.5 tonne China ranks 44 in the world, Australia being at the top of the list with 20.58 tonne followed by USA, Canada and Saudi Arabia. China has now pledged to cut its carbon intensity goal by 40-45 per cent by 2020.

It is important to note that against the suggestion of Denmark, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have refused to set a target of reduction of the global carbon emission by half, by 2050. BASIC countries emphasized that the developed nations should first work out an implementable model for emission cut before setting up any target.

2. United States: Emits 5,903 million tonnes of CO2 with a plan to cut the emission by 17 per cent from 2005 level by 2020. Per capita emission of CO2 of the USA, which ranks no.2 in the world, is 19.78 tonne.

3. Russia: Emits 1,704 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to cut emission by 25 percent, by 2020, if others also do the same.

4. India: Emits 1,293 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 1.16 tonne and agreed to cut emission by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 level by 2020.

5. Japan: Emits 1,247 million tonne of carbon. It is important to note that last year in Japan CO2 emission came down by 6.2 per cent and the country agreed to reduce its CO2 emission by 2020 from its 1990 level by 25 per cent, if similar steps are taken by other developed nations of the world.

6. Germany: Emits 858 million tonne of carbon dioxide.

7. Canada: Emits 614 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 18.81 tonne. The country agreed to reduce its emissions by 2020 from 2006 level by 20 per cent.

8. U.K: Emits 586 million tonnes of carbon dioxide with a declining emission level. As compared to 1990 level, EU has agreed to a 20 percent cut in emission by 2020.

9. South Korea: Emits 514 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to reduce its emissions 4 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

10. Iran: Emits 471 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The country is worst hit by environmental pollution with marine ecology of the Caspian Sea is in great danger.

Conclusion:

Besides recent Copenhagen Accord more practical and effective steps must be taken by the global community, especially by these top 10 environmental polluters, to ensure quick and more substantial reduction in CO2 emission to arrest the climate change. This is obviously not expected to happen, as said earlier, at the cost of development and economic progress of any nation. The issue of climate change can primarily be addressed with initiation of various energy efficient measures to produce clean energy with increased sense of urgency.

Greater use of existing technologies like solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars together with integrated robust projects to preserve natural ecosystems could save the humanity from the disastrous consequences of global climate change.

By Tapan Ray

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

IPR, Climate Change and addressing the issue of transfer of Carbon abatement technology in the developing world.

Posted on by
Reply
To address all pervasive global challenge of climate change, access to efficient and cost effective carbon abatement technology to reduce the greenhouse effect has become a very important issue, especially for an emerging economy like, India. This issue perhaps will gain even more importance after the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
Various schools of thoughts:
Many experts argue that patents on various efficient carbon abatement technology developed by the western countries are making it increasingly difficult for the emerging economies of the world to address this issue, in a cost effective manner.

Another group of experts argue with equal zest that all patented technologies do not cost very high for efficient carbon abatement. Out of various types of such patented technologies, which are available globally to reduce the greenhouse effect, some may cost high, but many of them are also available at quite a low cost.

The third group says that many other efficient technologies are available to reduce carbon emission, which are not covered by any Intellectual Property Right (IPR), at all. Developing or emerging economies should consider these technologies to address this global issue, effectively.

An encouraging trend:

An encouraging trend is now emerging where the developing countries are also applying for patent on such technology with an increasing number. A recent report by the COPENHAGEN ECONOMICS highlights that during last four years, while the number of global patent on the carbon abatement technology increased by 120 per cent over the corresponding period of previous four years, the number of such patents from the developing or emerging economies increased by around 550 per cent. This is indeed a very interesting trend.

Difference in the number of patented technologies within the developing countries:

The same report also indicates that there is a striking difference in the number of patent protected carbon abatement technologies even within the developing and emerging economies. As per this report, around 99 percent of all patent protected technologies are from a small group of emerging economies, whereas just a meagre 0.6 percent of these patented technologies are from a large number of lower-income developing economies. This anomaly is believed to be mainly due to commercial reasons, as the owners of these patents are from the developed economies of the world.

A comparison between India and China:

The report highlights that 40 percent of the carbon abatement technology patents in China are locally owned against around just 14 percent in India.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, such studies perhaps will go in favour of the argument that patent protected carbon abatement technologies should not be considered as a barrier to technology transfer for reducing carbon emission by the low-income developing countries of the world. Also the IPR by itself perhaps will not be an impediment in the transfer of carbon abatement technology from the developed economies.

Many believe that rather than technological reasons, economic reasons are coming in the way in reducing carbon emission in the low income developing countries. The factors like, lack of adequate expertise to develop carbon abatement technologies locally, small market size to warrant a local manufacturing facility, low purchasing power etc. all put together play a significant role in appropriately addressing the greenhouse effect by these countries.

The local government of the respective developing countries should take all these factors into consideration and come out with appropriate and robust policy measures, which also should include lucrative fiscal incentives for using cheaper and efficient carbon abatement technology, to contain the greenhouse effect, efficiently and effectively.

By Tapan Ray

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

Healthcare reform for the needy and poor in the richest and the most populous countries of the world. What about the largest democracy of our planet?

Posted on by
Reply
Healthcare reform to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare services for all, is considered as an integral part of the economic progress of any country. During recent global financial meltdown, this need became visible all over the world, even more.In my last article, I wrote how the most populous country of the earth – China, unfolded the blueprints of a new healthcare reform process in April, 2009, taking an important step towards this direction.Around the same time, in the richest country of the world, after taking over as the new President of the United States of America, President Barak Obama also reiterated his election campaign pledge for a comprehensive healthcare reform process in the USA.

These measures, in both the countries, intend to ensure access to affordable, high quality health care coverage and services to every citizen of the respective nations. In America, the reform process also intends to bridge the healthcare coverage gap in their Medicare prescription drugs program for the senior citizens.

The pharmaceutical industry response to healthcare reform in the USA:

Responding to this major policy initiative of the government, very responsibly David Brennan, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca and the Chairman of Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced recently:

“PhRMA is committed to working with the Administration and Congress to help enact comprehensive health care reform this year. We share a common goal: every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care coverage and services. As part of that reform, one thing that we have agreed to do is support legislation that will help seniors affected by the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.”

For this purpose Brennan publicly announced the following:

1. America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies have agreed to provide a 50 percent discount to most beneficiaries on brand-name medicines covered by a patient’s Part D plan of Medicare, when purchased in the coverage gap.

2. The entire negotiated price of the Part D covered medicine purchased in the coverage gap would count toward the beneficiary’s out-of-pocket costs, thus lowering their total out-of-pocket spending.

American Pharmaceutical Industry pledges U.S$ 80 billion towards healthcare reform of the nation:

With the above announced commitment, it has been reported that the US Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies have offered to spend U.S$ 80 billion to help the senior citizens of America to be able to afford medicines through a proposed overhaul of the healthcare system of the country.

This is a voluntary pledge by the American pharmaceutical industry to reduce what it charges the federal government over the next 10 years.

What is the Medicare plan of America?

According to the explanation of the program given by Medicare, it is a prescription drug benefit program. Under this program, senior citizens purchase medicines from the pharmacies. The first U.S$ 295 will have to be paid by them. Thereafter, the plan covers 75 percent of the purchases of medicines till the total reaches U.S$ 2,700. Then after paying all costs towards medicines ‘out of pocket’ till it reaches U.S $ 4,350, patients make a small co-payment for each drug until the end of the year.

American citizens’ support on the new healthcare reform of President Barak Obama:

A leading American daily reports that American citizens overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the country’s healthcare system and are strongly behind a government run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes, so that every individual could have health insurance. Unlike in India, Americans feel that the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector.

Current American healthcare: High quality – high cost

85 percent of respondents in this survey said the country’s healthcare system should be completely overhauled and rebuilt. The survey also highlighted that American citizens are far more unsatisfied with the cost of healthcare rather than its quality.

President Obama has been repeatedly emphasizing the need to reduce costs of healthcare and believes that the health care legislation is absolutely vital to American economic recovery. 86 percent of those polled in the survey opined that the rising costs of healthcare pose a serious economic threat.

An interesting recent study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services:

A recent study conducted by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that as a part of the new healthcare reform initiative in the US, if the health centers are expanded from the current 19 million to 20 million patients, the country can save U.S$ 212 billion from 2010 to 2019 against a cost of U.S$ 38.8 billion that the government would have incurred to build the centers. This is happening because of lower overall medical expenses for these patients.

Last year the health centers already generated health system savings of U.S$ 24 billion.

What then is happening in the largest democracy of the planet – our own India, towards such healthcare reform?

India in its 1983 National Healthcare Policy committed ‘healthcare to all by the year 2000′. However, the fact is, in 2009, only 35 percent of Indian population is having access to affordable modern medicines. So many commendable policy announcements have been made by the government thereafter. Due to poor governance, nothing seems to work effectively in our country.

Conclusion:

People with access to the corridors of power appear to believe that when the country will clock the magic number of GDP growth of 9 percent, India will have adequate resources to invest in healthcare. Till then frugal healthcare initiatives will continue at the abysmal level of speed of execution, denying access to affordable modern medicines to 65 percent of population of the country.

If and when the healthcare reform plans will be unfolded in India, hopefully like in the USA, all stakeholders will come forward with their own slice of contribution to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all the citizens of our nation.

When the world believes that healthcare reform measures to cover the entire population of the country to provide access to affordable, high quality healthcare services is fundamental to economic progress of a country, the government of India seems to nurture a diametrically opposite view in this regard. The policy makers appear to sincerely believe that 9 percent economic growth is essentiall to provide access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

Are we engaged in the well known “Catch 22” debate at the cost of health to all?

By Tapan Ray

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

Managing expectations of the emerging markets of the world, proactively, will differentiate winners from the rest, in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry.

Posted on by
Reply
Change or Perish:In Mid 2007, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommended to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies that for sustainable business performance they should move a part of their expenditure from marketing to research. They also recommended that the drug prices should be related to incremental efficacy that the products would provide. That global pharmaceutical business model is “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets” as a challenge of change, was forecasted in 2007 by PwC in their ‘Pharma 2020: The vision’, report.Fast evolving scenario:

The global pharmaceutical industry scenario is fast evolving. More drugs are going off patent than what the innovator companies can replace with the new products. The research is undoubtedly failing to deliver.

At the same time, the business growth in the developed markets of the world has been declining over a period of time. The growth in the top two pharmaceutical markets of the world viz, USA and Japan has gone negative. IMS predicted in their recent ‘CEO Conclave’ in Mumbai that negative trends in these markets will continue even beyond 2013.

In the same conclave IMS predicted that ‘Pharmerging’ markets and Venezuela will drive the growth of the global pharmaceutical industry in the next five year period. Within ‘Pharmerging’ markets, China is expected to record highest CAGR growth of over 25%, followed by India and Turkey around 12-14% each. With such a scorching pace of growth China is expected to become third largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2013 with India holding its 2008 ranking of no. 13. Venezuela is expected to register highest CAGR growth of around 40% during this period placing itself as the eleventh largest pharmaceutical market of the world, comfortably overtaking India.

Emerging markets will drive global growth:

IMS health reported that last year the global pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of US$712 billion, which is an increase of US$178 billion over last five years. However, the growth rate has come down to 6.4% compared to 11.8% in 2001. Emerging markets like India, China, Russia, Turkey and South Korea have recorded a growth of 13%, 25.7%, 20.2%, 17.2% and 10.7%, respectively against just 3.8% growth of the US market.

Making up sales revenue of world’s top 10 products:

World’s 10 top selling prescription drugs, as reported by IMS, which will be difficult to replace in terms of single-product value turnover after they go off patent, are as follows:

- Lipitor, US$13.5 billion (Pfizer)

- Plavix, US$7.3 billion (Sanofi-Aventis)

- Nexium, US$7.2 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Seretide/Advair, US$7.1 billion (GlaxoSmithKline)

- Enbrel, US$5.3 billion (Amgen and Wyeth)

- Zyprexa, US$5 billion (Eli Lilly)

- Risperdal, US$4.9 billion (Johnson & Johnson)

- Seroquel, US$4.6 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Singulair, US$4.5 billion (Merck)

- Aranesp, US$4.4 billion (Amgen)

Focus on the emerging markets and other measures are expected to more than offset the loss of revenue and profit for these products.

Key business issues in the emerging markets:

Governments of many of these emerging markets expect some local benefits out of the evolving growth opportunities of the global pharmaceutical companies from their respective countries. Various reports indicate that there will be mainly the following two key issues in these markets:

• Local manufacturing of products
• Pricing

Local manufacturing:

Out of these emerging markets, Indonesia has clearly spelt out its intention by specifying that the pharmaceutical companies marketing their products in Indonesia will need to establish local manufacturing facilities. The new rule is directed towards local job creation.

The Health Minister of Indonesia has said, “If they want to get licenses (to sell their products) they have to invest here also, not just take advantage of the Indonesian market.” The Minister further added, “they can’t just operate like a retailer here, with an office that’s three meters by three, and make billions of rupiah. That’s not fair.” It has been reported that India and China may also come out with similar requirements for their respective countries.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has registered a strong protest in this matter with the President of Indonesia and has urged a reversal of this decision. However, the country appears to have taken a firm stand in this matter. This is evident when in response to the report that some global pharmaceutical companies have threatened withdrawal of their business from Indonesia because of this reason, the Health Minister retorted, “If they want to go away, go ahead.”

Pricing:

Anticipating such moves in the emerging markets, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has already started reducing the prices of its products in the emerging markets.

The visionary CEO of GSK, Andrew witty strongly believes that such price reduction will enable more patients in the emerging markets to afford GSK products. Consequently the increased sales volume will not only be able to offset the price loss but will also create a substantial goodwill for the company in these markets.

Quoting Andrew Witty the ‘Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ) reported that in Philippines, GSK has reduced the price of 28 products by 30% to 50%. In other emerging markets in Asia including India, Malaysia and Thailand the company has reduced the prices of Cervarix, its cervical cancer vaccine, substantially.

Price reductions made by GSK in Philippines in March have started paying rich dividends to the company with 15% to 40% increase in sales revenue.

Conclusion:

To achieve the growth objectives in the emerging markets of the world, global pharmaceutical companies will need to find out a win-win solution. Andrew Witty of GSK has set examples in this area with various path breaking initiatives. Pricing and local manufacturing of products, in that order, are expected to be the key issues in the business model for emerging markets of the global pharmaceutical companies. Witty has responded to such expectations proactively and in an exemplary way. His vision is widely expected to be emulated by many others, as we move on, in the interest of all stakeholders.

By Tapan Ray

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

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Posted on by
Reply
A brief background:
In June 19, 1970 an International patent law treaty was signed in Washington, initially with 18 contracting states. This treaty is called ‘The Patent Co-operation Treaty’ (PCT), which came into force on January 24, 1978 and was subsequently amended in 1979 and further modified in 1984 and 2001.In August, 1998 India joined the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) by acceding to the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property. As on March 7, 2009, 141 states including all major industrialized countries, are signatories to the PCT.

PCT system, as we know, facilitates filing of patent applications under one roof with simpler procedure for search and examination of applications. This allows innovators of a PCT member country to obtain the effect of patent filings in any or all of the PCT countries.

The procedure currently followed by PCT is as follows:

“A single filing of an international application is made with a ‘Receiving Office’ (RO) in one language. It then results in a ‘search’ performed by an ‘International Searching Authority’ (ISA), accompanied by a written opinion regarding ‘patentability’ of the invention, which is the subject of application. This is optionally followed by a preliminary examination performed by an ‘International Preliminary Examination Authority’ (IPEA). Finally, the examination (if provided by national law) and grant procedures are handled by the relevant national and regional authorities.”

Currently the PCT does not lead to the grant of an ‘International Patent’.

WIPO recognizes Indian Patent Office as an ISA and IPEA:

Recently under PCT, ‘The World Intellectual Property Organization’ (WIPO) has recognized the Indian Patent Office (IPO) as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

Besides India, other countries which have this recognition are Austria, Australia, Canada, China, EU, Spain, Finland, Japan, Korea, Russia, Sweden and the USA.

This recognition will help India the following ways:

1. Through PCT route India will now receive international patent applications from WIPO for search and preliminary examinations. This will enable IPO to generate revenue in form of fees paid to ISA and IPEA.

2. This recognition would help the innovators of the country to avail patentability search, obtain IPER and written opinions much faster and at a cheaper rate.

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Recently a document has been published by WIPO for the meeting of PCT working group scheduled at Geneva from May 4 to May 8, 2009. The outcome of the meeting is not known to me, as yet. This document includes a proposal from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO) for having a relook at the existing international patent system. This relook and discussion could translate into development of an entirely new Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which perhaps would be termed as PCT II.

The key feature of the proposed PCT II is that all patent applications, which will successfully pass through scrutiny of both international/national processing system would automatically receive patent grants in all the member countries.

While discussing this process within the PCT working group, it is anticipated that following two key issues will crop up for an intense debate:

1. Harmonization
2. Sovereignty

However, many feel that an appropriate protocol system could be put in place to take care of both these concerns, where after release of an affirmative international patentability report, each member country will be given certain period of time to refuse the grant patent in that particular country, clearly specifying the reasons for the same.

In true sense it may not mean grant of a global patent, but definitely could be considered as a bold step towards that direction. PCT II, if sees the light of the day, is expected to create a much easier type of patent granting procedure.

To make it effective, existing PCT structure will need to undergo some significant changes. The new structure is expected to ensure a very high quality output. The member countries, who will work in tandem, should find the new procedures and systems much more user-friendly and at the same time efficient in ensuring comprehensive search between multiple offices that incorporate prior art submissions by the applicants and third parties.

However, if PCT II gets accepted in principle by all the member countries, a detail mechanism to effectively operate such a complex system to be worked out with great precision, ensuring full satisfaction to all concerned.

In India, this new development will certainly be examined with a ‘tooth comb’ and rightly so. It is expected that all pros and cons will be carefully examined by the country, getting fully involved in this international debate, before arriving at a final decision. On the face of it ‘PCT II’ appears to be a novel concept, which deserves due consideration by all the stakeholders and in no case to be summarily brushed aside following the shrill voices of some skeptics.

By Tapan Ray

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