Tag Archives: Bayer

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

  • Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
  • The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
  • Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals  for the treatment of advanced  renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis.  Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of  violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

  1. Manufactured in India
  2. Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

  • GlaxoSmithKline  Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
  • MSD  has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
  • Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
  • In 2008 Novartis  reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
  • Roche  has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year.  Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

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.

Will the ‘Bayer–Cipla case’ now put the ‘Bolar Provision’ under judicial scrutiny?

Posted on by
Reply
To enable the domestic pharmaceutical industry gaining a critical mass and cater to the pressing healthcare needs of the nation, in 1970 product patent act was abolished by the government of India. This immensely helped the domestic companies to launch the generic version of innovative medicines at a very low price, making those drugs quite affordable to a large section of the population.
Cost and process efficiencies helped the Indian pharma companies to reach out:

Quickly acquired cost and process efficiencies of the domestic generic pharma companies soon made India a power to reckon within the global generic pharmaceutical industry. Besides fueling the domestic demand of the essential medicines in general and these drugs in particular, the domestic pharma players soon commenced exports of these cheaper but high quality medicines to non-regulated and the least developed countries of the world to cater to their affordable healthcare needs.

India played a key role in combating HIV-AIDS in Africa:

In that process, India also played a critical role to ensure that HIV-AIDS drugs are available to the poor and down trodden in Africa in general and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, at an affordable price.

A paradigm shift:

On January 1, 2005, India stepped in to a new paradigm with re-enactment of the product patent act in the country, which is widely believed to be TRIPS compliant. This consequently ushered in a transition within the Indian pharmaceutical industry from the mindset of an ‘imitator’ to the prestigious status of an ‘innovator’, which ultimately drives the wheel of progress of a nation.

The voice of concern:

At the same time and for the same paradigm shift many expressed their grave concerns about the role that the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry will play in the new paradigm to continue to make cheaper but quality modern medicines available not only to a large section of the Indian society, but also to the needy patients of non-regulated and least developed countries of the world.

TRIPS safeguard provisions:

Although minimum standards of patent protection that patent holders should get have been articulated in TRIPS, it also very clearly specifies three very important public health safeguard provisions simultaneously, which will allow any participating country to utilize these during such types of needs.

These three TRIPS public health safeguard provisions are as follows:

A. Compulsory Licensing:

- There is nothing in TRIPS, which can limit the authority of the government, in any way, to grant compulsory licensing of a patented product for public health safeguard.

B. Parallel importing:

- TRIPS clearly indicates that under WTO dispute settlement body parallel imports cannot be challenged, if there is no discrimination on the patent holders’ nationality.

AND

C. Bolar Provisions

The Bolar Provision:

To enable the generic players launching new molecules at a much cheaper price, the Patent Act 2005 provides for exceptions to the patentee’s exclusive rights under Article 30 of TRIPS, as ‘Bolar Provisions’ in its section 107A(a):

“any act of making, constructing, using, selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product.”

This section provides an exemption from patent infringement to the generic manufacturers from producing and importing patented drugs for research and development, related to submission of information for regulatory approvals of generic versions of patented products before the original patents expire. The legislative intent of this section is to ensure that the generic versions of patented products are ready with necessary regulatory approval for market launch, immediately after the innovator products go off patent, rather than going through a long rigorous process of getting the regulatory approval only after expiration of the patent term.

Is the Section 107A now under judicial scrutiny?

This section may be unfairly used by some generic manufacturers, soon after the launch of products patented in India, for unfair commercial reasons. The final judgement on Bayer–Cipla case on Nexavar may throw some light on this important provision. It is quite possible that because of this reason Delhi High court has ordered Cipla to seek the High Court’s permission before market launch of the generic version of Bayer’s patented product.

Conclusion:

Although there is nothing wrong in using a patented molecule for getting regulatory approval with a genuine intent to launch the generic version after the original product goes off patent, it now appears that in absence of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, this section may most likely to be abused more by some generic players with mala fide commercial interest.

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.

Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India

Posted on by
Reply
Delhi High Court turned down the request of Bayer Corporation in August 18, 2009 to link patent status of its kidney cancer drug Nexavar (sorefenib tosylate) with the marketing approval of the generic equivalent of the same patented molecule manufactured by Cipla, during the patent life of Nexavar in India.Bayer received an Indian patent for Nexavar in March 2008, which is one of the potential blockbuster drugs of Bayer Corporation and is expected to clock an annual global sales turnover of around U.S $1 billion soon.In this particular case, Bayer argued that an approval for its generic equivalent from Cipla would infringe on their patent.

The interim and the final judgment of the Delhi High Court:

Honorable Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in response to the petition filed by Bayer Corporation and refrained the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) from granting marketing approval of the generic version of sorefenib tosylate of Cipla, until the final order is passed by the Court.

In its final judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that Bayer should not have brought this case to the honorable court as the drug regulation is not linked to patent rights in India.

Further, the court could not, “conclude that unpatented drugs are spurious drugs” and said, “this court is constrained to observe that the present litigation was what may be categorized as speculative foray, and attempt to ‘tweak” public policies through court mandated regimes.”

Besides, the honorable Court has asked the Bayer Corporation to pay Rs 6.75 lakh to the Government and Cipla as legal costs.

Will this High Court ruling encourage more such incidence in India?

Some experts feel that the Delhi High Court ruling may encourage generic pharmaceutical companies to launch generic versions of patented drugs in India despite the risk of paying damages, if patent infringement is proved in a court of law.

Keeping all these in view, let us now discuss the relevance of Patent Linkage in India.

What really is a patent linkage?

The process of Patent Linkage establishes a desirable communication process between the Health Ministry and the Patent Offices to prevent marketing approval of generic drugs before expiration of patents granted in India.

It also ensures that one Government Department / Ministry does not impair the efforts of another Government Department / Ministry to provide effective intellectual property protection as required by Article 28 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

However, the generic companies argue that the role of the DCGI is restricted to regulating safety and efficacy of the drugs, whereas ascertaining patent status of products fall within the ambit of Indian Patent Offices. Thus these two cannot be linked.

The argument in favour of a robust Patent Linkage system:

1. WTO TRIPS Article 28.1a says that the member countries agree to ensure exclusive rights to patent holder for a specific time period. In case of India, like most other countries, this time period is for 20 years.

2. During this period the member countries agree to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale the patented product without the owner’s consent.

3. In India there is no known strong deterrent for patent infringement. In absence of which, the opportunity to make significant commercial gain through patent infringement, on the pretext of extending benefits to patients could indeed be, many a times, difficult to resist.

4. Media reports that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has raised huge demand in crores of rupees for overcharging the common man, flouting the drug pricing norms, by some of these large companies involved in patent infringement litigations, vindicates the point of their basic overall intention of significant commercial gain over extending pricing benefits to the common man.

Who is responsible to ensure the sanctity of the product patent system in India?

1. The prevailing situation warrants a strong regulatory system, which could prohibit marketing approval of generic equivalents of patented molecules during their patent period.

2. The question that is often raised in this context is who exactly be held responsible for implementation of such a system in our country? While addressing this question one should realize that it is the Government in its entirety and not just the Patent offices or any particular ministry or ministries of the Governments is bound by the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, it is justifiably the responsibility of all Government departments/ministries to ensure that TRIPS obligations of the Government on proper enforcement of patent are properly met.

3. The process of granting marketing approval for patented molecules, in general, rests on the Ministry of Health (MoH) of WTO member states. Thus for WTO member states to meet TRIPS obligations effective communication between the MoH and the Patent offices of the country is absolutely essential. Such a system will help prevent approval of generic versions of patented molecules before expiration of the product patents.

4. Establishing this communication process will ensure that one department/ministry of the Government (say DCGI) does not impair the efforts of another Government department/ministry (say IPOs) to provide effective intellectual property protection as articulated in Article 28.1 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

5. This system will ensure that Health Regulatory Authorities do not, even unintentionally, undermine the commitment of the Government to conform to the TRIPS Agreement.

Will India be the unique country if such a system of “Patent Linkage” is put in place?

The answer is obviously ‘no’. The system of Patent Linkage exists around the world.

Following are some examples:

Australia – Health Authorities do not provide marketing approval for a generic copy which would infringe an existing patent.

Brazil – As of 2006, no copies of products still under patent have been launched in the market place. However, the Brazilian Health Agency (ANVISA), grants registration to copy products, based only on the merits of the case from the regulatory point of view, whether or not a patent has been granted for the same.

Canada – Health Regulatory Authorities do not provide marketing approval for pharmaceutical products protected by patents listed in the equivalent of the US FDA Orange Book.

China – The State Food & Drugs Administration (SFDA) must be satisfied that no patent is being infringed before it will issue marketing approval. If there has been litigation over a patent, SFDA will wait until the appeals process has been exhausted before acting.

Jordan – Marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product is not permitted during the period of patent protection.

Mexico – Applicants seeking marketing approval for generic pharmaceutical products in Mexico must certify that their patent rights are not infringed. The Health Regulatory Authorities then check with the Patent Office, which must respond within ten days to confirm whether a patent is involved. While Health Authorities will accept an application of marketing approval during the patent period, grant of marketing approval will be delayed until the patent expires.

Singapore – Applicants seeking marketing approval for generic pharmaceutical products in Singapore must declare that the application does not infringe any patent.

U.A.E – The Health Regulatory Authorities do not provide marketing approval for pharmaceutical products that remain under patent protection in the country.

U.S.A – U.S. FDA maintains a listing of pharmaceutical products known as the Orange Book. The Electronic Orange Book is also available via the internet at: http://ww.fda.gov/cder/ob The U.S. FDA does not authorize the marketing approval for a generic copy of a pharmaceutical product protected by a patent listed in the Orange Book.

Europe – Instead of Patent Linkage, the period of data exclusivity is for 10/11 years.

The Patent Linkage System is in progress in countries like Bahrain, Chile, Dominican Republic – Central America FTA (DR-CAFTA), Morocco and Oman.

Conclusions:

I therefore submit the following recommendations to ensure proper enforcement of products patent in India:

 The status of the grant of patent should be reviewed, through appropriate drug regulatory mechanism, before granting marketing permission to generic formulations and if the concerned innovative product is already patented in India, marketing permission for the generic formulation should be withheld.

 Appropriate mechanism/system should soon be worked out in co-ordination with other Ministries to avoid cases of infringement of product patents in India.

 The procedure (Patent Linkage) of checking the patent status of a product before granting marketing approval already exists in the Form 44. This procedure needs to be effectively implemented soon to encourage innovation in India.

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.