Tag Archives: Patent

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.

Revised Mashelkar Committee Report recommends inclusion of ‘incremental innovation’ under patentability criteria.

Posted on by
Reply
In 2006, the Government of India appointed a Technical Expert Group (TEG) chaired by the eminent scientist and the then Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, with the following terms of reference:1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.The TEG submitted its report to the Government on December 29, 2006. However, due to some ‘technical inaccuracies’ Dr. Mashelkar sought the permission of the Government on February 19, 2007 “to re-examine and resubmit the report, which meets with the requirements of the highest standards’’. This request was acceded by the Government on 7th of March 2007.

Much water had flown down the bridge thereafter, which we shall not deliberate upon here. Ultimately in March 2009 the TEG submitted its revised report.

In terms of overall content, the revised report is similar to the previous one, which was withdrawn earlier.

Conclusions of the revised TEG report:

The conclusions of the report against the terms of references given to the TEG are as follows:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology’. However, every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India. Further, every effort should be made to prevent the grant of frivolous patents and ‘ever-greening’. Detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

2. “Excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of TRIPS Agreement.”

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

It is indeed interesting to note that under Para 5.11 the TEG says, “the committee was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself into these issues.”

However, in Para 5.32 the report observes the following:

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

With this observation, TEG has also clarified the scope of section 3(d), indirectly though.

The report further recommends, “detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

What next?

It will be interesting to watch what the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) does with this revised report. As we have seen that the report categorically states:

“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”

And

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Therefore, taking these two recommendations together my questions are as follows:

1. Will the DIPP conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant?

2. If so, will the DIPP recommend an amendment of this section sooner to encourage ‘incremental innovation’ within the country?

3. If not, will the DIPP clarify now the need, purpose and the importance of this report?

By Tapan Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

A quick comparison with China:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is China different?

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

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

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

Where India scores over China:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way forward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Simmering discontentment in the functioning of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) – urgent need to tighten the ‘loose knots’ in the system.

Posted on by
Reply
Indian Patent office (IPO) though is headquartered at Kolkata, because of some unknown reason, the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM)is located in Mumbai with other two offices at New Delhi and Chennai. Moreover, the office of the ‘Patent Information System’ is located at Nagpur. Scattered location of the IPO, many believe, could be an impediment in ensuring uniformity in operations between all its units. Such an opinion is debatable though, I shall not deliberate on this issue in this article.The point that I shall argue upon is the crying need in the IPO to tighten 15 identified ‘loose knots’in its operation, which are causing considerable concern within stakeholders, who are casting serious aspersions in its efficiency.There are some areas where our IPO is doing quite well. I shall also dwell upon those areas before highlighting the areas of improvements.

The new IPR regime came into force from January 1, 2005. Even 4 years down the line, the IPO still remains grossly understaffed. Growing dissatisfaction with the current functioning of the IPO is fast sapping initial enthusiasm of the innovators on the new IPR regime in the country. ‘The glass’ now perpetually looks as ‘half empty’, as it were and will continue to do so, if corrective measures are not taken, forthwith.

The information available from the IPO website indicates that all the four centers put together, there are just 134 Examiners, 31 Assistant Controllers, 4 Deputy Controllers and 1 Joint Controller. Staff attrition rate within the IPOs has been reported to be reasonably high, which incidentally appears to be one of the key issues of their inefficiency. These trained IPO personnel are being poached mainly by the private sector enterprises, offering significantly higher remuneration. At the same time, there appears to be 3 times increase in the number of applications filed in the last five years, complicating the situation further.

The silver lining is, despite all these, the performance of IPO quantitatively speaking, is really not as poor. Around 11,000 patents were granted by the IPOs in 2007-08. This number, when translated into average number of patents granted per day, works out to be 50. This figure, when viewed in terms of number of patents granted against the number of applications made, compares reasonably well with the developed nations of the world like, USA and EU. It is worth noting that in those countries the product patent regime is in place, since long.

Indian Patent Act 2005 is believed to be more stringent than the prevailing Patent Acts in the USA or EU. It is good to note that quoting the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) it has been reported that each Indian Patent Examiner examines about 100 applications per annum against 50 to 80 in the USA and the EU. This is indeed laudable.

Indian Patent Office is currently going through ‘capacity building’ exercises. The efforts being made towards this direction are expected to make the IPOs more efficient, hopefully, in pursuit of excellence.

India has recently been approved as an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This, in turn, will significantly increase the workload of the IPO.

When we are mentioning about the PCT, perhaps it will not be out of place to say that some section in India argues in favour of the need to include the International Nonproprietary Names (INN) in the title of pharmaceutical patent applications by the IPO. However, as INNs are not required in the title of patent applications under Article 27(1) of the PCT, such a requirement, in my view, could appear to conflict with the PCT.

Thus, it has now become more essential that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) tightens the ‘loose knots’ in the IPO system, immediately, to make it efficient and effective.

In this article I shall not go into much debated and discussed, ‘Indian Patent Manual’ issue. I shall only submit the following 15 suggestions towards achieving the above objective:

1. To effectively cope with its growing workload, the Patent office should upgrade its IT facilities and ensure that patent examiners are trained to handle the filing and prosecution of patent applications.

2. Electronic-filing of patent applications has been introduced, but there is no facility of paying the fees online by credit card. This facility should be introduced to make it more convenient for applicants to file patent application online. This will also add speed to the process.

3. Electronic prosecution of patent applications should be introduced to make the patent prosecution paperless and more efficient.

4. To encourage applicants to file applications electronically, incentives such as reduced fees should be offered to applicants who file their applications electronically.

5. The Patent Office has in the past experienced problems in locating and managing physical application files. It is therefore recommended that the Patent Office introduce systems for better management and storage of physical files. Using a system of bar codes on the physical files could be one such system.

6. The Patent Office should digitize all of its physical files so that file histories of each application will be available online.

7. The Indian Patents Database and the Indian Designs Database to be released without further delay.

8. An efficient system to be introduced to ensure timely publication of all patent applications and proceedings that are eligible for publication in the technical journal of the IPO. Currently there is inordinate delay, for example Delhi Patent Office is now publishing applications for 2005

9. Patent applications that are published in the official gazette have minimal information. It is therefore recommended that the official gazette include more details of the applications in order to avoid any frivolous or unnecessary oppositions being filed.

10. The Patent office does not have any centers, which provide assistance to applicants for filing or prosecuting applications. It is therefore recommended that assistance centers should be established to help applicants to file and prosecute applications in India.

11. Clear guidelines to be issued for conducting pre-grant and post grant opposition proceedings. Presently they are being handled in an arbitrary manner

12. In order to avoid any frivolous pre-grant opposition during the prosecution of the application, the Patent Office should introduce a fixed fee that has to be paid to the Patent Office at the time of filing of a pre-grant opposition. This will help to avoid frivolous delays in the grant of the patent.

13. In order to introduce an efficient system of patent prosecution, it is recommended that the Patent Office adjust patent term to compensate patentees for any delay in the grant of the patent that reduces the term of the patent, when such delay is caused solely by the Patent office.

14. Decision making and its communication to all concerned to be made faster at the IPO. A system to be instituted for issuing the operative part of the decision first, followed by details of the decision taken. These should be advertised immediately in the technical journal to close proceedings at the earliest. Delays are leading to extensive delays in the grant of patents even if the proceedings have been concluded (opposition or otherwise) attracting serial and frivolous pre-grant oppositions. Such delays are also preventing the patent applicants to get their grants and are, therefore, unable to initiate infringement proceedings against infringers quickly, defeating the very purpose of the patent and trademark system.

15. The timeline for an application to be taken up for examination to be clearly defined. Currently, there is no time defined for taking up the applications for examination.

It will indeed be great, if the DIPP and the IPO take note of these suggestions and formalize a process within the IPO to address these issues. A growing discontentment in several areas of operation within the IPO is brewing, both in India and abroad. If such discontentment increases further, it may have serious impact on the credibility of the new IPR regime in India.

Will the Government of India want that to happen? I hope not.

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.

Global Pharmaceutical Industry: Capturing the micro-trends, having potential to become future mega-trends.

Posted on by
Reply
The situation:Almost the entire developed world is reeling under recession… Slowed down business growth… Gradual drying up of research pipeline… Skyrocketing R&D cost… Pressure on product price …Market capitalization going south… Cut throat market competition… Depressed business sentiments…Past M&As are no longer yielding desired results… Global pharmaceutical companies are to lose nearly US$100 billionin sales as many blockbuster drugs are set to go off-patent over the next five years. Sounds quite like a dooms day! No, in my view, the industry including in India, is going through a transformation process. Is any trend emerging through this process? Yes, of course. Let us now try to capture these micro-trends, which have a potential to become tomorrow’s mega-trends.The response:

Before we delve into that, let us see how the global pharmaceutical industry has been responding to such a situation during this trying time. A strong instinct of survival, in such a situation, will undoubtedly prevail. This instinct is driving some of the large companies, with reasonably deep pocket, towards consolidation. This is happening through mergers, acquisitions and even through hostile takeovers.

Globally, from 2008 to date about 58 mergers and acquisitions have taken place, mega, big or small. Amid the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. and Roche Holding AG could raise a mindboggling amount of US $155 billion to expand and survive in their business.

This month Merck & Co acquired Schering Plough for US$41.1 billion in a cash-and-stock deal that will create the second largest pharmaceutical company in the USA. Richard Clarke, Chairman and CEO of Merck said that the merged company would benefit from the rich R&D pipeline, a significantly broader product portfolio and a wider presence in the global markets.

Besides enriching R&D pipeline and achieving substantial revenue synergy, the merged entity is expected to achieve significant cost synergy of about US$ 3.5 billion by 2011. This deal comes just six weeks after Pfizer Inc swallowed up Wyeth for a record US$68 billion. This move of Pfizer’s is not only expected to enlarge its product portfolio, but also to significantly reduce its dependence on Lipitor, which goes off-patent in 2011.

Just after these, Roche clinched a deal to acquire 44% of Genentech Inc with US$ 46 billion. In 2008 almost 75% of Pharmaceuticals sales of Roche were contributed by the products brought in from Genentech stable. This signifies the importance of acquisition of Genentech by Roche.

Will the M&A strategy be viable in the longer term?

All these companies are basically looking for various avenues to tide over the impending crisis, especially in their R&D pipeline by acquiring other suitable companies. However, looking at the past records, it appears that many of these mega mergers may not fetch a sustainable longer term gain. Insatiable desire to merge or acquire another company for various reasons, keep coming back to these companies after a little while, once again. Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sanofi Aventis etc will stand as good examples. Some believe that merging just for the sake of width and depth of the R&D pipeline could have its underlying risks, as business compulsion of two different research cultures to come together may cause a serious adverse impact on ‘the climate of innovation’. Such a congenial environment very often plays a critical role in the process of discovery of breakthrough drugs. Probably because of this reason many questioned whether Genentech’s productive R&D culture can flourish under Roche’s full control.

Let me now deliberate on emerging micro-trends in the global pharmaceutical industry. All these micro-trends, in my view, are having potential to get transformed into mega-trends in not too distant future.

Micro-trend 1: Reorganization of large R&D set-ups into smaller units to foster innovation.

Despite creating large R&D set-up through mega mergers, we have also witnessed that some pharmaceutical majors like, GSK, are reorganizing the large R&D set-ups into smaller units to foster innovation, under the leadership of Andrew Witty, the current CEO. This strategy is expected to reap rich harvest.

Micro-trend 2: From concentrating exclusively on innovative medicines to expansion into low risk generic medicines.

Not so long ago Global R&D companies focused only the business of innovative prescription medicines. Low margin generic business was not their cup of tea. Today the scenario has made a 180 degree shift. Low risk, low cost and high volume turnover of generic business is now attracting many R&D based companies.

We are now witnessing another model of mergers and acquisitions, which was pioneered by Novartis some time back. An increasing number of companies are planning to spread their business in less risky generics pharmaceutical businesses. This business model will not require going through lengthy R&D and ever increasing stringent regulatory approval process for their entire product portfolio, in the developed markets of the world. Following this business model Daiichi Sankyo acquired Ranbaxy, in India. Sanofi-Aventis is in the process of acquiring the generic company of Eastern Europe, Zentiva. GSK acquired Pakistan operations of Bristol Myers Squibb, other generic business in South Africa and Egypt and mature products business of UCB in some selected markets of the world. Pfizer has also recently made somewhat similar move in India by entering into a strategic alliance with Aurobindo drugs for sourcing generic formulations for their global markets.

Micro-trend 3: From only prescription medicine business to businesses like, OTC, Nutrition, Diagnostics, Animal Health products, to reduce the business risk.

Some research based companies are now trying to somewhat insulate themselves from high risk R&D business by focusing on, besides generics, other low risk areas like, over the counter medicines (OTC), nutrition products, diagnostics, animal health businesses etc. Companies like, GSK, Pfizer, Roche will be good examples for such strategy.

Micro-trend 4: From sharp business focus mainly on top 10 markets of the world to extension of focus on key emerging markets of the world.

Not so long ago, large multinational companies (MNCs) used to have major focus on top 10 markets of the world. Now a days many of these companies are extending their business focus on emerging markets, like, India, Brazil, China, Russia, Turkey, Mexico etc, which are riding high on a very strong growth curve, unlike USA, Europe or Japan.

In these markets to gain a critical mass, the MNCs will need to enter the generic business and the best way to do it is by acquiring a good generic company. For this reason, in India we may soon start witnessing MNCs acquiring large to mid-size domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies. Daiichi Sankyo has just shown the way by acquiring Ranbaxy in India. This process has not started in full swing, as yet, probably because of expected very high valuation for their respective companies, by the Indian promoters following Ranbaxy deal.

Micro-trend 5: Gradual shift in R&D focus from infectious to chronic to preventive (vaccines) to personalized medicines.

Global pharmaceutical industry got a head start with the innovative drugs to treat infectious diseases. It gained growth momentum by changing its R&D focus on non-infectious chronic disease areas. We now observe a micro-trend to move towards preventive therapy like vaccines even for cervical cancer. With the emergence of stem cell research in the USA and with the rapid progress of RNAi technology, very soon we may enter into the area of personalized medicines, as well. Thus, in my view preventive and personalized medicines will be the high growth pharmaceutical business of future. At that time, the pharmaceutical business model will change significantly though, to adapt to the changing business environment.

Is the era of Blockbuster drugs over?

Let me now reiterate that contrary to the belief of many, future R&D pipelines of the global pharmaceutical companies are not too dry, either. I am not in agreement with many pontificating that the future of blockbuster drugs is over. Published reports indicate that 581 primary-care driven NCEs covering disease areas like, Central Nervous System (CNS), Cardiovascular, Vaccines, Respiratory, Anti-infective etc, are currently in Phase I and Phase II stages. Similarly 637 specialist-care driven NCEs covering disease areas like, Oncologics, Autoimmune agents, HIV, Immunostimulants, Alzheimer, Immunosuppressive etc, are also in phase II and Phase III clinical trial stages. Altogether 1218 NCEs are currently in Phase II and Phase III stages of clinical trial.

Indian Pharmaceutical Companies – are they in a dilemma?

In sharp contrast to prevailing scenario in the global pharmaceutical industry, in India, after a paradigm shift to a new IPR regime, the domestic pharmaceutical industry seems to be in a great dilemma, to some extent they seem to be in a state of identity crisis. Many domestic companies seem to be getting too overawed by the change in their ‘reverse engineering’ business model, as a fuel for growth.

At this stage, it is very important for all these companies to appropriately change their business model based on their competitive strength and quickly adapt to the new paradigm. Instead of considering the research based global companies as competitors, they should look at them as potential collaborators for various outsourcing opportunities; starting from contract research, contract manufacturing to contract marketing, as well. Why not?

Need to move from fragmentation to consolidation for leveraging the business growth:
Indian pharmaceutical industry is now highly fragmented. This is the high time to move away from fragmentation to consolidation, which will help the domestic pharmaceutical industry to attain adequate scale to invest significantly in their well considered business model to fuel the growth engine.

India is making progress in pharmaceutical R&D:

In India some domestic pharmaceutical companies have made significant progress towards R&D output. Published information indicates that Biocon, Piramal Healthcare, Glenmark, Ranbaxy and Suven Life Sciences have between them 45 NCEs. Most of these fall under oncology, infectious, metabolic and respiratory disease areas. Out of these 19 NCEs are in pre-clinical and the balance are in Phase I& Phase II clinical trial stages.

To sum-up, I witness the following micro-trends globally, which we should keep tracking with interest:

 Reorganization of large R&D set-ups into smaller units to foster innovation.

 From concentrating exclusively on innovative medicines to expansion into low risk generic
medicines.

 From only prescription medicine business to businesses like, OTC, Nutrition, Diagnostics, Animal
Health products, to dilute the business risk.

 From sharp business focus mainly on top 10 markets of the world to extension of focus on key
emerging markets of the world.

 Gradual shift in R&D focus from infectious to chronic to preventive (vaccines) to personalized
medicines.

WILL THE BALL GAME BE QUITE DIFFERENT TOMORROW?

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.

Innovation, IPR and Indian Pharmaceutical Industry – a growth formula is brewing.

Posted on by
Reply
Innovate or perish:Many of us expect that ‘tomorrow’ will be a ‘mega today’ and prefer to run our business more or less the same way, as what we are doing today. At the same time the global market keeps us sending, in very small measures though, but definite and continuous signals of change. As we move on, we realize that ‘tomorrow’ will not be a ‘mega today’, just as ‘today’ is not a ‘mega yesterday’. To meet such challenge of change squarely and realistically, we need to embrace a culture of ‘continuous innovation’.Therefore, the name of the game, while competing within the globalised economy is “continuous innovation”. An innovation, as we know, is more than a novel idea. It is, in fact, the process of translating the novel idea into reality.

Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry in India will also have to innovate with cutting edge ideas, convert them to innovative and implementable business models, which in turn would help these companies to remain competitive in the market place. The innovation, which I am talking about, extends beyond Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

While innovation is an absolute must to remain and grow the business, having patented products and marketing these brands effectively are desirable and not a ‘must do’ in the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Many would like to ‘stick to knitting’ and innovate:

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is now an internationally acclaimed player in process development, contract research, manufacturing and domestic marketing skills. The Government of India created this environment for the industry through amendments of the Indian Patents Act 1970.

During post product patent regime in India, there is no dire need for the entire domestic industry to shift its focus from world class process development skills to new molecule development skill. On the contrary, the strengths acquired by the domestic industry in such skill sets should be further honed, to utilize benefits from opportunities that arise out of basic R&D processes. Some of these are collaborative activities with the multinational companies (MNCs) to create a win-win situation in areas like, contract research, clinical development, contract manufacturing and domestic marketing of in-licensed products.

The domestic pharmaceutical industry should therefore adopt strategies like manufacturing off patent products, like recent collaboration between Aurobindo Pharma and Pfizer, Jubilant Organosys with French company Guerbet, for distribution of its nuclear medicine products in Europe. ‘Financial Express’ dated March 13, 2009 reported “Eli Lily seeks partner for Indian TB initiatives.

Such opportunities will keep on coming, may be more frequently and more in number, especially when global innovator companies take more interest in the generic pharmaceutical business, like, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Aventis etc.

To grab such opportunities, the strategy of ‘stick to the knitting’ with continuous innovation is expected to help the domestic pharmaceutical companies immensely.

IPR regime – emerging opportunities:

Discovery Research:

While above approach will help many small and medium sector enterprises, many large pharmaceutical companies and research boutiques in India are investing significantly to discover New Molecular Entities (NMEs). It has been reported that by 2011, at least two Indian pharmaceutical companies are planning to launch their NMEs.

Biotech Research:

Research in the field of Biotechnology is rapidly evolving, especially in the areas of diagnostics, vaccines, cellular and molecular biology. It is heartening to note that for doing stem cell research National Institute of Health, USA, identified Reliance Life Sciences in Mumbai and the National Institute of Biological sciences in Bangalore to receive state funding from the USA. Both these two organizations entered into contracts to supply embryonic stem cells to the US based researchers. Moreover, in the field of ‘Biometrics’ raw clinical data are now being transmitted to the specialists in India for their scientific evaluation.

It has been reported that in the developing countries of the world malaria afflicts about 300-500 million population and kills 1-3 million of them. Malaria also allows some fatal genetic illnesses, like sickle cell anaemia to thrive in the gene pool. Hence a vaccine developed for this disease through Indian biotech initiatives, would indeed be a great boon for the developing countries of the world.

Industry – Academia Collaboration:

In the Western countries, close collaboration exists between the industry and academic institutes in the field of Pharmaceutical Research. Such type of collaboration has now started developing in India too, where Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is playing major role.

An effective collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and the academia will ensure productive use of research talents where both the parties will draw benefits. The research done by the CSIR, Indian Institute of Technology (IITs), Indian Institute of Science and various universities is expected to throw open new avenues of collaboration and partnership between industry and Academia.

Benefits of Technology Transfer and increased Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):

The new product patent regime is also expected to facilitate flow of technology and foreign direct investment in India with adequate patent enforcement mechanism being put in place. Inadequate patent and regulatory data protection are considered by the developed nations as the key barriers, which restrict the flow of both technology and foreign investments.

In these areas, India mainly competes with China and Brazil, besides other emerging markets. Degree of patent and regulatory data protection in each of these countries will eventually decide who will emerge as a winner in these fields.

The issue of ‘Access to New Innovative Patented Drugs’:

Innovative pharmaceutical products patented in India will facilitate access to the latest modern medicines to Indian population. Such medicines will help to meet the unmet needs of the ailing population. Many multinational companies like, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have already announced a differential pricing mechanism for such medicines in the developing countries.

Moreover, to improve access of such medicines to the common man, the Government of India should have robust plan to purchase these medicines, at a negotiated price, for supply to Government Healthcare Units

Improving ‘Access to affordable modern medicines’ – a challenge to the nation

There are three key elements to improve access to affordable medicines to a vast majority (650 million) of Indian population:

1. Healthcare infrastructure and delivery
2. Healthcare financing
3. Procurement price of these medicines at the Government Healthcare units

Price of patented products will not have any impact on existing medicines available in the market. However, the reality is, price regulation in some form will continue to play a key role in India. The long overdue new Drug Policy of India is now expected to come only after the new Government takes charge, post General Election of the country. The new policy is expected to articulate the details on this important subject both for patented and generic medicines, in India.

A determined and focused approach of the Government on the above three elements would effectively address the key healthcare issues of India.

Small Scale Enterprises in India – expecting large scale consolidation:

In India over 70% of the small-scale units, within the pharmaceutical industry, currently operate as contract manufacturers, either for the domestic or multinational companies. These small scale units with their low operating cost ,make the contract sourcing model an attractive proposition. Many of these small scale enterprises, are mostly catering to the export business in non-regulated markets.

The demand for high quality standard by the drug regulatory authorities of various countries is fast increasing. It is, therefore, essential for these units to make significant investments to qualify for such stringent quality requirements. Some units would be able to invest enough to meet such regulatory standards. However, the cost of production for those units, which will invest towards facility up gradation is expected to increase significantly, leading to fierce cut throat competition. In a situation like this, we can expect to witness a large scale consolidation process within the industry.

Intense competition from China – cannot be ignored:

Globalisation of the markets could lead to significant dumping of products in different countries. Such a situation may adversely affect the cash flow of business, making the domestic industry highly vulnerable. Currently, Indian manufacturers are facing intense competition from China, in Pharmaceutical Intermediates (PI) and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) segments. This is mainly because China has a much better economies of scale in manufacturing, which gives them a pricing edge over their Indian counterparts.

PI and he API manufacturers in the small scale enterprise segments of India have already been very adversely impacted, leading to closure of many units in various states like, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat.

Conclusion:

The issue of a robust world class patent regime in India has sparked off an intense debate with a heavy dose of acrimony. The key areas of concern of various stakeholders are as follows:

1. General public: inadequate access of affordable modern medicine to the common man
2. Domestic generic industry: overall industry growth and to some extent its survival
3. The Government of India: combination of 1&2

After many years of tough resistance mainly from the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry, in January 1, 2005, India re-entered into the pharmaceutical product patent regime. In this article, I have tried to give a snapshot of this new regime, for a quick reading.

Despite tough competition from China and increased possibility of consolidation within small scale pharmaceutical units, overall emerging scenario in India is indeed encouraging. Imbibing innovation culture and with the opportunities available in the new IPR regime, Indian pharmaceutical industry, I believe, will be able to catapult itself to newer heights of global success.

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.

On ‘Patent Linkage’ – a rational argument on an emotive debate

Posted on by
Reply
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.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.In India, during last twelve months, at least 4 patents were infringed by the local generic companies. All these cases are currently under litigation. No one at this stage will possibly be able to hazard a guess as to when will these cases ultimately get resolved. If it takes another two to three years to get the final verdict from the honourable High Courts, the revenue of the innovator companies who have already launched their patented products in India will get shaved off, at least for this period, leaving a very adverse commercial impact on them. There is a theoretical possibility that it may take even more time for the honourable High Courts to resolve these cases and during the remaining period of limited patent life of these products the cases may not get resolved, at all.

Moreover, 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. 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 patients. The moot question that follows is who is responsible to ensure the sanctity of the product patent system in India?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

My experience of the last three years of post product patent regime in India prompts the need for establishing a “Patent Linkage” system without further delay, not only for effective patent protection but also to encourage innovators to get more involved and engaged in the process of innovation in India.

Will India be the unique country if such a system of “Patent Linkage” is put in place? The answer is obviously ‘no’.

In the largest market of the global pharmaceutical industry, the USA, such a system exists. US FDA maintains a listing of pharmaceutical products known as the ‘Orange Book’. The soft copy of the ‘Orange Book’ is also available through internet at: http:/www.fda.gov/cder/ob/.

US FDA does not authorize marketing approval of generic versions of patented molecules listed in the ‘Orange Book’.

What then happens in the second largest market of the global pharmaceutical industry, the European Union (EU)? In the EU, sanctity of the product patent is ensured by granting 10/11 years data exclusivity. Thus, if any company intends to introduce a generic version of a patented molecule, it will have to generate its own sets of entire regulatory data through a very long and expensive process, which may take several years. Even after spending huge amount money and time towards generation of their own clinical data, there is no guarantee that such companies will be able to market the product without getting involved into expensive patent infringement litigation. Thus in the EU, the deterrent to make such an ambitious attempt is humongous.

Various types of ‘Patent Linkage’ system also exists in Australia, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, UAE, Singapore, China etc. While putting in place of such a system is reportedly in progress in countries like, Chile, Dominican Republic – Central America, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman etc.

To conclude, in my view, when the Government of India is the sole authority to grant product patents in India, it is the responsibility of the same Government to protect those patents through its Health Regulatory System i.e. DCGI’s office. I reckon, such a system already exists in India. The procedure of (‘Patent Linkage’) checking the patent status before granting marketing approval already exists in FORM 44, which is an application to the DCGI for grant of permission to import or manufacture a New Drug or to undertake clinical trial in India. In the first page of FORM 44 (available in the website of the DCGI) under ‘Particulars of New Drug’ in point 8, it seeks details of the ‘Patent Status of the drug’. Can this information be not effectively utilized to justifiably deny marketing approval of a generic version of a patented molecule during its patent life in India? If not, it is difficult to make out what purpose will the DCGI utilize this information for?

Thus in my view, the procedure to be followed for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India is already in place. There is hardly any need to reinvent this wheel either. The Health Regulatory Authority of India should now make this procedure work effectively in its obligation to adhere to the commitment of the national Government to honour Article 21.1 of WTO TRIPS Agreement.

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.

‘Orphan Drugs’ for ‘Orphan Diseases’ – is ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ platform for discovery research the way forward?

Posted on by
Reply
To meet the unmet needs of common and dreaded diseases intensive R&D activities are being undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Industry, the world over. At the same time, a percentage of human population, however small, also suffers from some rare diseases, for which there are no approved medical treatments even in the twenty first century, for the rich and poor alike.These rare diseases are also termed as ‘orphan diseases’, which are often chronic, progressive, degenerative, life-threatening or disabling. Many patients suffering from such rare diseases are denied their right to get their ailments effectively treated.It is indeed heartening to note that European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS) and National Alliances announced February 29, 2008 as the first ‘Rare Disease day’. Thereafter, the last day of February has been designated as ‘Rare Disease Day’ worldwide to call attention to the public health issues associated with rare diseases, which have been reported to affect around 30 million patients around the world.

People with rare diseases remain a medically underserved population even in a developed country. We can then well imagine the plight of such patients in India. The ‘Rare Disease Day’ is intended to bring together the patients and families with rare diseases to discuss the need for greater awareness, more research, and better access to diagnosis and treatment. I am not sure how various authorities, including our Government, are deliberating on this healthcare issue.

People suffering from ‘orphan diseases’ often face huge challenges compared to more common diseases. These include delay in getting an accurate diagnosis, few treatment options and difficulty finding medical experts. Many such rare diseases have no approved treatment. Moreover, treatments for ‘orphan diseases’ tend to be in most cases more expensive than treatments for more common diseases.

This year, the “Rare Disease Day” will be observed in India also, on February 28, though these are not very much talked about in our country, nor is there any proper definition in place for such diseases, as yet.

The drugs meant for treating ‘orphan diseases’ have been very appropriately termed as ‘orphan drugs’, mainly due to commercial reasons, as such drugs will be used on much fewer patients with commensurate return on investments towards R&D. Thus spending expensive R&D resources toward such drugs may not make sound commercial sense.

To address this need, in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act was passed by the Congress in the USA to extend financial incentives for companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Since then, nearly 330 ‘orphan drugs’ and biologics have been approved by the U.S. FDA, which estimates that from 11 to 14 million Americans would benefit from these ‘orphan drugs’. However, despite such commendable measures taken by the US FDA, around 15 million Americans still leave with such ‘orphan diseases’ for which there is no approved treatment.

It is interesting to note that some of these ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in medical science, more of such ‘orphan diseases’ are likely to be known in our country.

Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures? In the USA, even by giving adequate financial incentives, this problem could not be effectively addressed for commercial reasons.

In my view, one of the ways to properly address this issue is to follow the model of our very own the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for an ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD) program with global partnerships, wherever required. This initiative has been pioneered by the well known scientist and Director General of CSIR Dr. Samir Brahmachari. Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline also had mooted a similar idea in another context in not too distant past.

Therefore, to address the issue of ‘orphan diseases’, in my opinion, the OSDD model with partnerships between private, public and academia will not only prove to be a viable and more practical model to discover ‘orphan drugs’, but will also help India to effectively contribute to this important global issue – not just by observing the ‘Rare Diseases Day’ on February 28 or 29, each year.

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.