Tag Archives: Patents

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

Compulsory License (CL) is generally considered a very important provision in the Patent Act of a country to protect public health interest not only by the governments, but also by a large number of experts across the globe and the intelligentsia within the civil society.

The key objectives:

The key objectives of the CL provisions in the statute are to:

  • Rectify any type of market failure
  • Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

WHO hails CL provisions:

‘The World Health Organization (WHO)’ says that ‘the provision for Compulsory Licenses (CL) is a critical element in a health-sensitive patent law’. It emphasized that CL constitutes an effective mechanism to:

-     Promote competition

-     Increase affordability of drugs, while ensuring that the patent owner obtains compensation

for the use of the invention

-     Lack or insufficiency of working of patent

-     Remedy of anti-competitive practices

-     National emergency

-     Government use for non-commercial purpose

-     Other public interest grounds

WHO also recommends the use of CL for any “abuse of patent rights”. This is primarily to ensure that drug prices remain consistent with local purchasing power.

Even ‘UNAIDS’ have recommended the use of CL, as provided under the TRIPS Agreement, where countries have the right to issue such licenses.

Views of R&D based pharma companies:

It is well known that the provisions for the grant of CL other than national emergencies have been generally opposed by the research-based pharmaceutical industry on the grounds that they discourage investments on R&D.

Despite such opposition, most developed countries have CL provisions in their law, which the respective governments can use to promote competition and access to medicines.

Provisions for CL in TRIPS Agreement:

While TRIPS agreement does not limit the grounds or reasons for granting CL, countries can only use those grounds which are allowed by their own national legislation. The development of appropriate national legislation is therefore crucial.

TRIPs further states that the conditions under which a compulsory license is granted should be regulated in accordance with the TRIPs Agreement (Article 31), under a number of conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Examples of CL provisions in some important countries:

China: Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib Tosylate to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

U.S: Patent law does not provide for CL, which is allowed under the antitrust law. US has been granting CL to remedy anti-competitive practices and for governmental use, including national security.

Canada:  The country introduced CL for drugs, way back in 1923. Canada has granted number of CLs and a robust generic pharmaceutical industry exists in that country.

France: French law authorizes CL when medicines are “only available to the public in insufficient quantity or quality or at abnormally high prices”.

Israel: In Israel a CL can be granted, “if it is necessary to assure the public of a reasonable quantity of a product capable of being used as a medicament, to manufacture a medicament or a patented process for manufacturing a medicament.”

Brazil:  The country will grant CL in cases of “national emergency or public interest, declared by the Federal Executive Authorities. A temporary nonexclusive compulsory license can be granted if necessary. Brazil defines Public Health interest to include “public health protection, satisfying nutritional requirements, protection of the environment and other areas of fundamental importance to the technological or social and economic development of the country.”

Very few CLs granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions for the grant of CL in many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date. The details are as follows:

Country Medicine CL granted in
Israel Hepatitis B Vaccine October 1995
Italy Imipenem (antibiotic) June 2005
Italy Sumatripan Succinate (migraine) February 2006
Canada Oseltamivir (influenza) July 2006
Brazil Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS) May 2007
Thailand Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer) January 2008
India Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer) March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

India joins the league in 2012:

Indian Patent Office granted a Compulsory License (CL) for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer Corporation) to Hyderabad based Natco Pharma Limited under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act. Nexavar is used for treatment for liver and kidney cancer.

The Compulsory License, first of its kind granted in India, enables Natco to sell the drug at a price not exceeding Rs. 8880 (US$ 178 approx.) for a pack of 120 tablets (one month’s therapy) against Rs. 284,428 (US$ 5,690 approx.) being the cost of Nexavar sold by Bayer before the CL was granted to Natco. The license is valid till the expiry of the patent on 2021.

The order on CL also makes it obligatory for Natco to supply the drug free of cost to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year.

The grant of CL generated adverse impact from many developed nations of the world, as was expected by many.

However, welcoming the order Natco reportedly commented, “This opens up a new avenue of availability of life savings drugs at an affordable price to the suffering masses in India.”

Does grant of CL for non-NLEM products make sense in India?

Currently all government healthcare initiatives in India are focused on ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, be it drug price control, free distribution of medicines to all through government hospitals/health centers or even much hyped, ‘Universal Health Coverage’ proposal.

In this situation, another school of thought says that by granting CL to Natco for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer), which does not fall under NLEM 2011, hasn’t India diluted its focus on essential drugs? More so, when NLEM 2011 features quite a good number of anti-cancer drugs, as well.

The other side of the argument: Is CL a viable solution to improve access in the developing nations?

International Policy Network (IPN) in an article titled, “Compulsory licensing no solution to health problems in poor countries – say experts from India, Argentina, Canada and South Africa” stated that patents and other forms of Intellectual Property (IP) are an essential component in economic development of any emerging economy, which needs to be well protected by the governments.

The article further opines that any form of interference with IP by the grant of CL or even price controls will undermine investments and cause more harm than good. The paper, therefore, calls for stronger protection of IP across the world.

Yet another paper  titled, “The WTO Decision on Compulsory Licensing – Does it enable import of medicines for developing countries with grave public health problems”, states that flexibility of innovator companies to adjust prices according to purchasing power of the people of different countries is constrained by the following two reasons:

  • A genuine risk that medicines sold at lower prices in the developing countries will be re-exported to high income markets.
  • Many high income developed countries also regulate the prices of medicines at the national level. There is a high risk that these countries will use prices in the developing markets as external reference pricing.

Thus, the author argues, in both the above situations, patented medicine prices will be undermined in the most important markets, making it difficult for the research-based companies to use prices only of high income countries to fund R&D costs for the discovery of new medicines.

Fostering innovation in India:

The healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations across the world, not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options.

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, the creation of an innovation friendly ecosystem in India calls for a radical change in our mind-set.

From process innovation to product innovation, from replicating molecules to creating new molecules- a robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation, and India is no exception. It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner its 12th 5 year plan.

However, the question that is being raised now: will frequent grant of CL vitiate the attempt of the government to create an innovative culture within the pharmaceutical industry in India. 

CL will not arrest increasing ‘OoP’ for healthcare in India:

While India is making reasonable strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in proving healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population with ballooning ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of around 78 per cent of its population.

This is mainly because of the following reasons:

  1. Absence of ‘Universal Health Coverage’
  2. Lack of proper healthcare financing and insurance system for all strata of society
  3. Difficulty in managing the cost of healthcare even when the country is providing generic drugs for a sizable part of the world market

One finds some good initiatives though, for population Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and hears about the success of ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural areas. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country.

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to chronic non-infectious diseases, OOP on healthcare will increase further.

Currently health insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. Ideally, medical insurance schemes in India should also cover domiciliary or in-patient treatment costs and perhaps loss of income too, along with hospitalization costs, if India wants to bring down the OoP for its population or at least till such time the ambitious ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project gets translated into reality.

Greater focus of the Government in these areas, many believe, will help increasing access to essential medicines very significantly in India, rather than frequently granting CL, as is being envisaged by many, especially for drugs, which are outside NLEM 2011.

Access to patented medicines unlikely to be addressed effectively despite frequent grant of CL: 

As we know, access to healthcare comprises not just medicines but more importantly healthcare infrastructure like, doctors, paramedics, diagnostics, healthcare centers and hospitals . In India the demand for these services has outstripped supply. There is a huge short fall in ‘Healthcare Manpower’ of the country as demonstrated in the following table:

Target

Actual

Shortfall %
Doctors

1,09,484

26,329

76
Specialists

58,352

6,935

88
Nurses

1,38,623

65,344

53
Radiographers

14,588

2,221

85
Lab Technicians

80,308

16,208

80

Source: Rural Health Statistics 2011 in 12th Plan draft chapter

Thus, there is an urgent need to have a holistic approach with the ‘Universal Healthcare’ in developing adequate healthcare infrastructure, efficient delivery system for medical supplies and creation of a talent pool of healthcare professionals and paramedics, to ensure access to healthcare for all the citizens of the country.

Without all these how will the diseases be diagnosed and the patients be treated for ailments, frequent grant of  CL not withstanding? 

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the prices of medicines in general and the patented drugs in particular will continue to remain highly sensitive in most parts of the world, if not all, which some astute Global CEOs of the pharmaceutical majors have already contemplated.

One of these Global CEOs very aptly commented, “Pharmaceutical industry, too, on its part, needs to metamorphose to strike a balance in delivering affordable and innovative medicines. It is unacceptable to hear of the US$1billion cost to develop a drug, which includes the cost of failure. We need to fail less often and succeed more often.”

He reiterated, “Pharma companies need to understand that just because you have a patent, people don’t suddenly have money in their pockets, or can afford American prices.”

In the same context another Global CEO said, “Our strategy is really to have affordable medicines because in emerging markets you do not have government reimbursement. So you have to have medicines that people can afford to pay for.…I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it.”

Keeping all these developments in view, as I said before, the contentious issue of the price of medicines cannot just be wished away across the world, which is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.

This is irrespective of the fact whether the country provides likes of ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or is driven by OoP expenditure by the majority of its population. Gone are those days, as articulated by the above Global CEOs, when a single global price for a product will be acceptable by all the nations across the world. India seems to be moving to this direction cautiously but steadily. 

It appears, responsible pricing and effective working of patents are the only answers to respond to the CL issue in India.

Thus, I reckon, it does make sense for India to have the relevant provisions of CL in its Patent Act, not just to rectify any type of market failure, but also to discourage any possible abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder in the country, as mentioned above.

However, it is also important for India to examine the potential negative impact of CL to foster innovation in the country and the global ramification of the same, including attraction of more ‘Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)’, which has been universally proved to be so important for the economic progress of any country, like India and China.

That said, while none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to affordable life-saving essential medicines, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of CL by the Indian Patent Office, as enumerated above by Natco et al, will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to essential medicines on a longer term basis in India.The decision for grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken in India only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

As enumerated above, the use of CL as a common tool to improve access to medicines could prove to be counterproductive in the long run for India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

The ruckus over Clinical Trials in India compels Government tightening regulations before flooring gas pedal for regional leadership

Posted on by
Reply

The subject of Clinical Trials in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of the fragile regulations of the country by the players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other clinical trial related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients even in case of trial related injuries or death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee:

Recently the Department Related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report of 118 pages in total on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The report begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them because of the following reasons:

  • Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
  • Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
  • Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
  • Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

In this prevailing condition, the committee felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences, is absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Some critical findings on the Drug Approval Process:

The PSC in its report made, the following critical findings, besides others:

  • “A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
  • Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.
  • Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
  • Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

Proper Auditing of Clinical Trials are lacking:

It is sad that that adequate focus on the ‘Clinical Trial Registry’ and even ‘Auditing of Clinical Trials’ is currently lacking in India, which are considered so important not only to maintain the credibility of the studies, but also to demonstrate their scientific integrity and ethical values.

Unfortunately, there seems to be many loose knots in the current clinical trial policy, practices and guidelines in the country, which require to be tightened by the Government to make the system efficient and transparent in the national endeavor of establishing India as one of the most favored destinations for global clinical trials.

Health Ministry recently responded:

Facing this stark reality and pressured by the Parliament, the government has recently demonstrated its intention of tightening the loose knots in the following two critical areas:

  1. Permission to conduct Clinical Trial
  2. Compensation of the Clinical Trial victims

A. “Permission to conduct Clinical Trial in India’ – the draft notification:

In response to the prevailing conundrum, ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’ of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July, 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on the ‘Permission to conduct Clinical Trial’.

The draft notification says that the licensing authority after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct clinical trial, subject to the following conditions:

  1. Clinical trial shall be conducted in compliance to the approved GCP Guidelines.
  2. Approval of the ‘Ethics Committee’ shall be obtained before initiation of the study.
  3. Ethical aspects of the clinical trial as described in the “Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants” published by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), shall be fully complied with.
  4. Clinical trial shall be registered at Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) before enrolling the first patient in the study.
  5. Annual status report on clinical trial viz. ongoing or completed to be communicated to the said Licensing Authority.
  6. Any ‘Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR)’ occurring during clinical trial shall be communicated within fourteen calendar days to the Licensing Authority and to the other investigator(s) participating in the study.
  7. In case of study related injury or death, the applicant will provide complete medical care, as well as, compensation for the injury or death and statement to this effect shall be incorporated in the Informed Consent Document. The details of compensation provided shall also be intimated to the licensing authority.
  8. The premises of sponsor/Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and clinical trial sites shall be open to inspection by the officer of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), who may be accompanied by an officer of the concerned ‘State Drug Control Authority’ to verify compliance to the requirements of Schedule Y, GCP guidelines and other applicable regulation.
  9. The sponsor/ CRO, investigators shall allow officers of CDSCO who may be accompanied by an officer of the concerned ‘State Drug Control Authority’, to enter with or without prior notice, any premises of sponsor/ CRO, clinical trial site to inspect, search and seize any record, data, document, books, investigational drugs etc. related to clinical trials and provide adequate replies to any queries raised by the inspecting authority in relation to the conduct of clinical trial.

This area of the clinical trial regulations will be finalized after taking into consideration of all the comments received from the stakeholders within the specified period.

B. ‘Compensation of the Clinical Trial victims’:

To address the pressing issues in this area Central Drugs Control Organization (CDSCO) in August 3, 2012, published an interim “GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING QUANTUM OF FINANCIAL COMPENSATION TO BE PAID IN CASE OF CLINICAL TRIAL RELATED INJURY OR DEATH”

The document articulates as follows:

“Presently there is no specific provision under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules for payment of compensation in case of clinical trial related injury or death of the subject. However, the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines for Clinical Trials of India under para 2.4.7 provides that the research subject who suffers physical injury as a result of their participation in clinical trials are entitled to financial or other assistance to compensate them equitably for any temporary or permanent impairment or disability subject to confirmation from Ethics Committee. In case of death, their dependents are entitled to material compensation. Guidelines further provide that it is the obligation of the sponsor to pay the compensation.”

Such concerns were also raised in the Parliament and other forums regarding payment of compensation in the cases of injury or death, related to clinical trials.

CDSCO’s interim guidelines now prescribe an interesting formula, which will be used to arrive at the financial compensation for all clinical trial related injuries and deaths.

To assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths following parameters have been mooted in the document:

  • Age of the deceased
  • Income of the deceased
  • Seriousness and severity of the disease, the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
  • Percentage of permanent disability.

Prior to the above new interim guidelines of the CDSCO, there was no standardization for the financial compensation either for clinical trial injuries or for that matter even death. In the past, such compensation was expected to be decided by the ‘Ethics Committee’ on case to case basis.

As stated above, the above formula has been indicated to be an interim measure before the final notification comes into force after taking into consideration all stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on this very important subject.

Drawing a comparison with China:

Driven by the stellar economic growth together with its booming pharmaceutical industry have enabled China to position itself as an emerging hub for global clinical trials. Following are some examples of the key growth drivers in the clinical research space of China:

  • A large diverse treatment naive patient population
  • Significant cost arbitrage
  • Recent improvements in the regulatory standards
  • Reverse brain drain of Chinese-born scientists educated in the west
  • Changing disease profile
  • Incentives to conduct clinical research in the country

However, linguistic and cultural barriers that affect patient reporting, enrollment and other medical practices in China could work as major barriers to the growth of Chinese clinical trial sector.

Clinical Trials: A ‘China – India’ comparison

It has already been reported  that India is ahead of China as most favored destination for global clinical trials, although the latter is quite close and breathing on the neck of India and could well even zoom past the former, if appropriate robust regulations and their effective implementation are still not ensured in India.

I. Majority of the Top 10 Pharma Companies conduct higher number of trials in India

Sr. No. Company

Clinical Trials in India

 Clinical Trials in China
1

Astra Zeneca

10

10
2

BMS

17

6
3

Eli Lilly

17

12
4

GSK

22

14
5

J&J

20

13
6

Merck

8

5
7

Novartis

9

6
8

Pfizer

16

5
9

Roche

5

14
10

Sanofi

15

13

Total

139

98

(Source: clinicaltrials.gov, 26 Oct 2007)

II. India leads China and Russia in Cardiology and Diabetes trials

Therapy India (%) China (%) Russia (%)
Cardiology 5.38 4.93 4.48
Diabetes 3.05 2.09 2.65
Neurology 0.90 0.90 3.62
Oncology 1.59 1.01 2.32

With the highest number of diabetic patients in the World and a very large population of patients with cardiovascular disorders, India has the potential to be the destination of choice for clinical trials in these two therapy areas, as we move on.

(Source: clinicaltrials.gov, 26 Oct 2007)

III. India has a greater % of phase II and III trials while China has more of Phase I and IV

Clinical Trials in India

Clinical Trials in China
Phase I

4%

 Phase I

7%
Phase II

16%

 Phase II

9%
Phase III

65%

 Phase II

51%
Phase IV

15%

 Phase IV

33%

(Source: clinicaltrials.gov, 26 Oct 2007)

IV. Of the total Industry sponsored trials only 3.5% are carried out in India and 2.63% in China

Company

Global Trials

India + China

Astra

231

20

BMS

148

23

Eli Lilly

238

29

GSK

347

36

J&J

461

33

Merck

213

13

Novartis

440

15

Pfizer

389

21

Roche

302

19

Sanofi

209

28

Total

2978

237

 

India 3.50%
China 2.63%
Global 93.87%

India and China’s share in the Industry sponsored Global clinical trial market is miniscule

Source: clinicaltrials.gov

Overall increasing trend of Clinical Trials Initiated in India:

The following table will substantiate the above point:

Year

No. Of Clinical Trials

1999

1

2000

0

2001

6

2002

6

2003

11

2004

26

2005

141

2006

206

2007

220

2008

295

2009

189

(Source: U.S. NIH, Pharmexcil Research)

India has the potential to accelerate its pace of growth significantly:

If robust regulatory measures are put in place, addressing serious concerns on the inadequacy of clinical trial regulations in India, together with uniform requirements for informed patients’ consent and appropriate ethics review, global pharmaceutical majors can be easily attracted to India for several reasons like:

  1. Technically competent and English speaking workforce,
  2. Patient availability and huge pool of naive patients
  3. Low costs and an improving drug-control system.

Thus, quite a number of criteria, as stated above, favor India to establish itself as a global hub for clinical research. Besides, availability of a number of government-funded medical and pharmaceutical institutions with state-of-the-art facilities could be very useful for mufti-centered clinical trials in the country.

Moreover, the cost to conduct a trial in India is lower by almost 50% – 75% than in the United States or in the EU. In addition, a good communication link favors quick recruitment of patients and faster regulatory approvals. Thus, clinical trials in India could be concluded faster, offering a sharp cutting edge for effective competition.

Due to all these reasons, India is gradually attracting more collaborative contract clinical research proposals in the country. Even many global Clinical Research Organizations (CRO) have already started establishing their set up in India. This pace can be accelerated significantly with the regulatory measures, as stated above.

Conclusion:

Clinical trials are the core of research-based pharmaceutical industry. No new drug can come into the market without clinical trials, which involve both potential benefits and risks to the participants. All clinical trials are conducted with the primary aim of bringing to patients new medicines with a favorable benefit–risk ratio.

Global clinical trials being relatively new to India, no wonder there are several misconceptions on the subject. The companies conducting research need to proactively publicize their commitment to protecting the rights, safety and well-being of trial participants.

All concerned must ensure that the proposals for clinical trials are approved by the government regulatory authorities before commencement and the trials must strictly follow the prescribed norms and procedures. For Phase I-IV human trials, the rights and privileges of the participants must be explained and the trials should commence only after their informed consent. The regulatory authorities, at the same time, should also ensure that any attempt of shortcuts or to bend the system by any means is met with severe consequences.

Although the Ministry of Health has already started initiating some action, as stated above, there is an urgent need for the players in this field to reassure the public, in general, about the high ethical standards that the pharmaceutical companies and Clinical Research Organizations require to comply with and continuously practice, while conducting clinical research.

It is therefore, high time for the Government to tighten the loose knots of the Clinical Trial regulations in the country before flooring the gas pedal to help India surging ahead as a major hub in the clinical trials space of the world, significantly distancing itself from China.

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.

Pharmaceutical R&D in India: Issues and Challenges

Posted on by
Reply

Research and Development (R&D) initiatives, though very important for most of the industries, is the life blood for the pharmaceutical sector, across the globe, to meet the unmet needs of the patients. Thus, very rightly, the Pharmaceutical Industry is considered as the ‘lifeline’ for any nation, in the battle against diseases of all types.

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals not only cure diseases and improve the quality of life of patients, but also help reducing the ‘burden of disease’ significantly. A study on five illnesses like AIDS, Cardiovascular, Cancer, Alzheimer’s and Rheumatoid-arthritis showed that drug research will save more than US$ 750 Billion in the treatment costs alone [1].

Similarly, treatment with drugs for schizophrenia can save more than US$ 70,000 per patient per year, due to avoidable hospitalization [2]. All these highlight the critical role that R&D could play in the healthcare system of any country.

R&D is not a threat to cheaper generic medicines:

More number of incoming patented medicines from the R&D labs will ensure faster growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry too, after the former will go off-patent. Even in the USA, which offers the highest number of innovative medicines across the globe, has a vibrant high growth generic pharmaceutical industry in place. The market penetration of cheaper generic drugs in the US is amongst the highest in the world and stands at more than half of all prescription medicines.

R&D process:

Over the years, pharmaceutical R&D process, though has evolved into a highly sophisticated and complex science, it still calls for enormous resources in terms of money, materials and skilled manpower, besides years of precious time.

Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call. Even in this environment, India’s investment in R&D still remains very modest by the international standard.

Global R&D investment and Asia-Pacific Region:

It has been reported that in the global pharmaceutical industry[3] 85 % of the medicines are produced by North America, Europe, Japan and Latin America and the developed nations hold 97% of the total patents worldwide.

Unlike the common perception, that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development is taking place in Asia-Pacific, despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world.

The key growth driver of any economy:

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, creation of innovation friendly ecosystem in the country calls for a radical change in the mind set – from ‘process innovation’ to ‘product innovation’, from ‘replicating a molecule’ to ‘creating a molecule’.  A robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation.

It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner in its 12th Five Year Plan.

Indigenous capability for production of the country must give way to indigenous capability for innovation and discovery.  Laws and policies need to facilitate, reward, recognise, protect and encourage all those who are or could be a part of this critical process.

Striking a right balance between the cost of research and affordability of medicines:

While the common man expects newer and better medicines at affordable prices, the Pharmaceutical Industry has to battle with burgeoning R&D costs, high risks and increasingly long period of time to take a drug from the ‘mind to market’, mainly due to stringent regulatory requirements. It will indeed be a very proud moment for India, when a drug, especially, for treating Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD) comes out of its home-grown R&D centers.

R&D is an arduous process:

The dynamics of Drug Discovery are shown below:

  • Despite patent life being 20 years, effective period of exclusivity for the discoverer is only 7.5 – 8.5 years.
Stages of Development No. of Years
Pre-clinical 3.5
Clinical 6.5
Regulatory 2.5 – 1.5
Total: 12.5 – 11.5
  •  Another report, as depicted in the chart below indicates the investment pattern in R&D by various countries in the developed markets of the world:

Where does the money go? (%)

US 36
Japan 19
Germany 10
France 9
UK 7
Switzerland 5
Sweden 3
Italy 3
Other 8

Where does the R&D investment go? (%)

Synthesis & Extraction 12
Screening & Testing 15
Toxicology & Safety 5
Dosage & Stability 9
Clinical Phase 1-3 26
Phase IV 6
Process Dev. & QA 10
IND & NDA 4
Bioavailability 2
Other 11

Looking at the long lead time before a new drug starts paying back and even if net profitability of 50% on sales are permitted, recovery of the entire R&D cost only from the Indian market would be virtually impossible.  Hence, if Indian R&D is to pay back, we need to have access to overseas markets.

Harmonization of regulatory standards is a must for containment of R&D costs.  Researchers in the country are currently following the ‘DRL’ or ‘Glenmark’ model of selling /out licensing the discovery for offshore development.

Strengths and weaknesses of India in Pharmaceutical R&D:

Following are the current strengths and weaknesses of the Pharmaceutical Industry of India from the R&D perspective:

Strengths:

  • Mature Industry with strong manufacturing base
  • Strengths in (innovative) process chemistry
  • Abundance of raw talent
  • Entrepreneurial spirit
  • Highly talented and skilled Indian scientists working abroad (great potential for networking)
  • Low cost of Manpower
  • Cost effective Manufacturing Facilities
  • Rich Biodiversity
  • Global Clinical Trials are now being contacted in India

Weaknesses:

  • Lack of funding and resources
  • Lack of a ready ‘talent pool’
  • Low profile of high quality work being carried out
  • Inadequate regulatory framework / infrastructure
  • Low investment in R & D
  • Missing Link between Research and Commercilisation

R&D Expenditure in India:

The following chart gives details of R&D spend of the major players of the Indian Pharmaceutical industry in 2009:

FY 2009                                  (USD=INR46)
Company Sales USD Mn. R&D USD Mn. As % of Sales
Ranbaxy Laboratories 1610 90.3 5.6
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories 1572 83.6 5.3
Cipla 1152 51.2 4.4
Sun Pharmaceuticals 951 67.4 7.1
Lupin 847 48.4 5.7
Wockhardt 770 11.2 1.4
Piramal Healthcare 720 18.5 2.6
Cadila Healthcare 644 34.4 5.3
Aurobindo Pharma 557 24.5 4.4
Matrix Laboratories 500 46.6 9.3
Total 9324 476 5.1

(Source: Prowess: Business World, February 8, 2010)

Research Options for India:

Following are various research options available to India:

  • Basic Discovery Research:

Basic Discovery Research is capital intensive, costly and takes a long time for the return on investments.  This could be made possible only if significant (NIH-type) funding is available.

  • Genetic & Proteomic Research:

Genetic and Proteomic Research involves many of these following procedures:

- Decoding Human Genetic Code

- Identification of Genetic Markers

- Personalized cards or chips that will contain each person’s genetic structure

- Genetic Manipulation to alter a person’s susceptibility to a particular disease

- Elimination of therapies that will not work on certain genotypes

This is probably the most exciting field of Research today, where the Industry will be able to “leap-frog” given the right priority.  The International Center of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) is already a recognized center of excellence both within and outside the country.  Hence international grants and funding must be aggressively pursued.

Biotechnology & Biosimilar drugs could be yet another opportunity area for India to leapfrog.  Biotech derived products are among the fastest growing in the world. These products being more expensive, if discovered and developed locally, could be affordable to many and also highly profitable.  Immunological and DNA Vaccines could be the most cost-effective answer to healthcare problems in developing countries, including India and should, therefore, be given top priority.  Here again, collaborative and international grants will be a critical success factor, just as the success of Biotech Companies in the US was fuelled by private venture capital.

  • Process Research:

While focusing on Product Research, the Process Research should not be ignored, as India possesses considerable skill base for this type of research, even better than China.  Cost effective, more and more economical processes will always be necessary to make products more and more affordable to patients.

  • Natural Product Screening:

India’s rich bio-diversity should not go waste.  The amount of work being done today is negligible as compared to the availability of “raw material” from the natural source.  Indian bio-diversity should be captured and cataloged into a meaningful library to facilitate R&D in this area.

  • 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. 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.

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India has adopted OSDD to discover more effective anti-tubercular medicines.

Other Areas:

  • Epidemiological Research: The Industry needs good reliable data on the burden of human diseases.  In the absence of this data, it will be difficult to allocate resources and predict outcomes of new therapies.
  • Clinical Research (including toxicological / animal testing):  This area needs to be made world class, sooner than the later, not only to bring down the cost of drug development, but also to ensure that the data thus produced are acceptable in other countries.  India has the potential to emerge as the most sought after global hub for pre-clinical and clinical drug development processes.

Success of Indian pharmaceutical companies in R&D:

Following are the details of success of some major domestic pharmaceutical players in their pharmaceutical R&D initiatives:

Company NCE Pipeline Key Therapeutic Area
Biocon Preclinical – 2Phase II – 2Phase III – 1 Inflammatory Diseases, Oncology, Diabetes
Piramala Healthcare 13 Compounds in Clinical Trials Oncology, Infectious Diseases, Diabetes, Inflammatory Diseases
Glenmark Discovery – 4Preclinical – 5Phase I – 1Phase II – 3 Metabolic Diseases, Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Diseases, Oncology
Suven Life Sciences Discovery – 2Preclinical – 4Phase I – 1 Neurodegenerative Diseases, Obesity, Diabetes, Inflammatory Diseases
Dr. Reddy’s Lab Preclinical – 1Phase II – 2Phase III – 1 Metabolic Disorders, Cardiac, Oncology
Advinus Preclinical – 3 Diabetes, Cardiac, Lipid Disorders
Worckhardt Preclinical – 10Phase II – 1 Infectious Diseases
Lupin Discovery – 2Preclinical – 1 Migraine, Psoriasis, T.B.

(Source: Financial Express, March 13, 2009)

Basic pre-requisites to encourage R&D in India:

  • Innovation friendly ecosystem
  • Adequate Funding
  • World class Infrastructure
  • Ready talent pool

The key elements of creating an ecosystem conducive to R&D:

  • Knowledge and learning need to be upgraded through the universities and specialist centres of learning within India.
  • Science and Technological achievement should be recognized and rewarded by the sanction of grants and the future funding should be linked to scientific achievement.
  • Indian scientists working abroad are now inclined to return to India or network with laboratories in India. This trend should be effectively leveraged.

Key role of Universities:

Most of our raw talent goes abroad to pursue higher studies.  International Schools of Science like Stanford or Rutgers should be encouraged to set up schools in India, just like Kellogg’s and Wharton who have set up Business Schools. It has been reported that the Government of India is actively looking into this matter.

R&D funding:

Access to world markets is the greatest opportunity in the entire process of globalisation and the funds available abroad are a valuable source of “funding” to boost R&D in India. Inadequacy of funding is the greatest concern.

The various ways of funding R&D could be considered as follows:

  1. Self-financing Research: This is based on (i) “CSIR Model” i.e. recover research costs through commercialization – collaboration with industries to fund research projects and (ii) “Dr Reddy’s Lab / Glenmark Model” i.e. recover research costs by selling lead compounds without taking through to development – wealth creation by the creation of Intellectual Capital.
  2. Overseas Funding:  By way of joint R&D ventures with overseas collaborators; seeking grants from overseas Health Foundations; earnings from Contract Research as also from Clinical Development and transfer of aborted leads (‘Killing Fields” of the West) and collaborative projects on Orphan Drugs.  Multinational companies could be encouraged to deploy resources, as this is where the real money is.
  3. Venture Capital & Equity Market :  This could be both via Private Venture Capital Funds and Special Government Institutions.  If regulations permit, foreign venture funds may also wish to participate. Venture Capital and Equity Financing will emerge as important sources of finance once track record is demonstrated and ‘early wins’ are recorded.
  4. Fiscal Support & Non-Fiscal Support: Will also be valuable in early stages of R&D, for which a variety of schemes are possible as follows:
  • Customs Duty Concessions: For Imports of specialised equipment, e.g. high throughput screening equipment, equipment for combinatorial chemistry, special analytical tools, specialised pilot plants, etc.
  • Income tax concessions (weighted tax deductibility): For both in-house and sponsored research programmes.
  • Soft loans: For financing approved R&D projects from Government financial institutions / banks.
  • Tax holidays: Deferral, loans on earnings from R&D.

Government funding: Government grants though available, tend to be small and typically targeted to government institutions or research bodies. There is very little government support for private sector R&D.

All these schemes need to be simple and hassle free and the eligibility criteria must be tight.

Infrastructure for R&D:

Scientific infrastructure needs of the country require to be urgently strengthened.  Many of our Research Institutions require immediate upgradation.  All research laboratories should be encouraged to be profit driven and plough back earning in modernization.

Quality of life (proximity to schooling, hospitals, recreation) and ambiance is important, particularly for scientists working abroad, who could be encouraged to return to India.

Setting up of world class Clinical Pharmacology Laboratories and Toxicology Centers must be considered.  All clinical trials carried out in India must conform to GCP standards.  At the same time, Indian registration procedures should be harmonized and simplified in order to minimize duplication of efforts and time loss.

Indian Patent infrastructure:

Indian patent infrastructure needs to be strengthened, among others, in the following areas:

  • Enhancing patent literacy both in Legal and Scientific Communities, who must be taught how to read, write and file a probe.
  • Making available appropriate Search Engines to our scientists to facilitate worldwide patent searches.
  • Creating world class Indian Patent Offices where the examination skills and resources will need considerable enhancement.
  • Advisory Services on Patents to Indian scientists to help in filing patents in other countries.

Partnering for Drug Discovery:

Many Indian pharma companies have entered into international collaborative arrangements, including R&D for development of new drugs for disease areas like cancer, diabetes, malaria and nervous system disorders.

DRL has partnered with ClinTec International for clinical trials and co-development of its anti-cancer drug. ClinTec International will possess the marketing rights for European markets while the commercialization for the rest of the world and US markets would be retained by DRL. It has also tied up with Torrent Pharma for the exclusive marketing rights of its two hypertension drugs in Russia, where Torrent has a strong market hold.

GSK and Ranbaxy set up an early-stage partnership in drug research, under which GSK will provide the Indian firm with leads, Ranbaxy will conduct lead optimization and animal trials, and GSK will take the drug through human trials. GSK will have exclusive rights to sell any resulting product in developed-world markets, and the two firms will co-promote it in India.

Conclusion:

- It is essential to have balanced policies offering equitable advantage to all stakeholders, including patients.

- Globalization brings opportunities like, access to markets, which are far more profitable than ours.  Any policy of isolation or retaliation in an increasingly more global environment, could go against the general interest of the country.

- Acceptance by the Government of the benefits of privatization, market liberalization and rationalization of Government controls, will add speed to R&D initiatives.

- The trade policy is another important ingredient of public policy which can either reinforce or retard R&D efforts.

- Empirical evidence across the globe has demonstrated that a well balanced patent regime in the country encourages the inflow of technology, stimulates research and development, benefits both the national and the global pharmaceutical sectors and most importantly benefits the healthcare system.

- The Government, academia, scientific fraternity and the Pharmaceutical Industry should get involved in various relevant Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements for R&D to ensure wider access to newer and better medicines in the country, providing much needed stimulus to the public health interest of the nation.

References:

  1. The Process of New Drug Discovery and Development, Second Edition, Charles G. Smith and James T. O’Donnell, 2006, p. 422, published by Informa Healthcare.
  2. Goddamn the Pusher Man, Reason, April 2001
  3. Abhinav Agrawal, Kamal Dua, Vaibhav Garg, U.V.S. Sara and Akash Taneja, 27- Challenges and Opportunities for The Indian Pharma Industry, Health Administrator vol. xx number 1&2 : 109-113
  4. “Food & Drug Administration, Generic Drugs: Questions and Answers”. Food and Drug Administration, January 12, 2010.

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.

Challenges for the Pharmaceutical Industry in the new paradigm – there are more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’of U.K recently conducted a study with a sizeable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional areas like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas.
The study indicates that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic approach. Besides this finding, my experience also vindicates that today is not a mega yesterday, just as tomorrow will not be a mega today.
Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Gaining greater market access and increasing pressure of price containment:

The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing pressure. This critical development together with the issues related to gaining greater market access remain a prime concern for the future.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the doctors and patients will increasingly look for beyond the physical pharmaceutical products, will indeed be the cutting edge for the winners, in this new ball game.

Questioning the relevance of the current business model:
Top managements of the pharmaceutical companies have already started evaluating the relevance of the current global pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus. Only treatment of diseases will not be considered just enough with an offering of various type medications. Added value with disease prevention initiatives and appropriately managing quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process.

Greater innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain:
Greater and more frequent incremental innovation across the pharmaceutical Value Chain will be critical success factors. The ability to really harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be an important part of the business strategy of a pharmaceutical company in the new world order.

Well integrated decision making processes:
More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition, especially in the branded generic market, have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Avoiding silos and empire building have long been a significant issue, especially for big pharmaceutical companies. Part of better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient investment decisions and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications and will no longer deliver incremental intrinsic or extrinsic differential value to the stakeholders.

Customer engagement:
Growing complexity of the prevailing business environment, including most recent change in the MCI regulations for the doctors are making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communications channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors and patients and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required.

Let me hasten to add, even in the new paradigm, the fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry has been attempting to address these critical issues over decades, has not changed much. To unleash the future growth potential the pharmaceutical companies are still moving around the same old issues like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, customer focus, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building mega product brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few.

Such responses do ring an alarm bell to me. It is known to many that most of the pharmaceutical companies have been investing in all these areas since long and yet these are the very points being highlighted even in the new paradigm to meet the “Challenge of Change”. The moot question will therefore be, what have all investments in these areas achieved, so far? And why have we not been able to address the needs of the new world order focusing with these tools? More importantly, if we do not address these issues moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’ even now, one can well imagine what could the implications be in the times to come?

The future Business Model will need to different:
I believe, the underlying business model of large global organizations focused primarily on developing New Chemical/Molecular Entities (NCEs/NMEs) from initial product discovery through development and commercialization, is unlikely to continue to yield results in the new era. The issue of ‘Patent Cliff’ has already started haunting the research based companies and assuming larger dimensions day by day.
Global pharmaceutical businesses have started evolving beyond patented drugs and including generics to create more diversified and robust healthcare businesses. It is quite evident from the strategies of many larger global pharmaceutical companies that this process has already begun.

Will R&D be collaborative in nature in future?
Currently R&D cost to launch a new patented drug in the market is reported to be around US$ 1.8 – 2.0 billion with accompanying huge risk factors. Thus there is a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors.
Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the risk and reward of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction.
Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy but they are not uncommon either, as we witness these, especially in areas like IT. So why cost effective collaborative R&D projects be not initiated to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the healthcare space?

Could building pharmaceutical mega brands go beyond just a product for better ROI?
Building brands involve creating equity around an entity that delivers value to the customer, over and above the key functional properties of product. Traditionally, the global pharmaceutical industry has been largely focusing on building mega product brands having specific product life cycle say about ten years, especially for patented products.

Could the core idea of building a mega pharmaceutical brand be substantially different, in future?
I reckon, yes. Instead of investing huge sums in building pharmaceutical product brands with very limited product life cycle (for patented products), a more dynamic, powerful and cost efficient brand building process could well entail focusing on the ‘Corporate franchise’ brands with a mix of both patented and generic products in different price bands for different customer segments within a specific therapy category or disease area.

So instead of consistently creating, building and watching the mega patented pharmaceutical brands grow, mature and die, pharmaceutical companies could well encash the real opportunity to build long term emotional equity into their brands, hopefully without the suffocating NPPA restrictions associated with the current product brands.

Who knows, tomorrow’s list of the world’s top mega brands will not be dominated by the likes of Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix or Advair, but perhaps by quite a different types of mega brands like for example, GSK Vaccines, Sanofi-aventis Endocrinology, Novo-Nordisk Diabetic Care, Abbott Nutrition or Pfizer Cardiac Care.

Serum Institute Vaccines could be considered as one such brand for vaccines as a category, created within the pharmaceutical arena in India, over a long period of time.

Conclusion:
It is indeed quite clear now that the pharmaceutical business models are undergoing a serious re-evaluation in the new paradigm. I get a sense that the change is inevitable due to a variety of trends that are squeezing both sales and margins, posing severe challenges towards R&D, product development, marketing and communications.

As I have deliberated, some kind of solutions are gradually emerging. However, the key questions of how profound will this change be and how well the pharmaceutical companies are prepared to counter these changes, still remain unanswered.

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.

A global pharmaceutical iconoclast, who sees “Fortune” beyond the creamy top layers of the society … even at the bottom of the Pyramid

Posted on by
Reply

In March 2009 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) unraveled a path breaking vision, within the global pharmaceutical industry, with the creation of a ‘voluntary patent pool’to spark development of new treatments for neglected diseases of the poorest countries of the world.

The head honcho of GSK Andrew Witty articulated, as reported by Reuters, ‘he feels that this is the right way to help research, especially of tropical diseases like malaria, filariasis, cholera etc. to meet the unmet needs of the poorer population of the world’.

Cares for the poor:
Simultaneously, Witty also announced that GSK will sell its patented medicines in the 50 poorest countries of the world at 25% of their cost in the developed nations and invest 20% of profits made in these poorest countries to help creating and developing local healthcare infrastructure and treatment facilities for the indigenous population.

It appeared to me that this young global pharma CEO is charting the yet uncharted frontiers where there are no footsteps to follow. Witty attained this iconic status when he aired his views without slightest hesitation by admitting openly, “Society expects us to do more in addressing these issues. To be frank, I agree. We have the capacity to do more and we can do more”.

Challenged the global pharmaceutical industry:
The young CEO, to utter surprise of many, further added, “he was challenging the industry to go further to address global health problems by being more flexible on patent protection and pricing in the neediest countries”.

That was March 2009…Came March 2010…

Repeated the firm resolve:
During his visit to India in March 2010, Witty reiterated the same resolve with unequivocal clarity. When a Journalist from “The Economics Times” asked him, ‘There are concerns among some of your global peers about the patent and regulatory environment in this country. Are you concerned with the existing regulatory environment in India?’, Witty replied with his usual conviction and élan as follows:

“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an intellectual property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”

Is it a mere ‘lip service?’:
If you ask me, does this leader belong to a different genre? I shall reply with an emphatic ‘yes’. Andrew Witty seems to be indeed ‘walking the talk’ and is understandably quite capable of thinking much beyond of pleasing ‘The Wall Street’ and the likes of it, just with quarter to quarter business performance and ‘guidance’. He thinks about the patients both rich and poor. There are no reasons to doubt this patient-centric noble intent, Nor does it appear to me as a mere ‘lip service’.

One can interpret a ‘one-off statement’ made by any global pharma CEO in a way that one would like to. However, repetition of the same statement time and again in different counties possibly reflects nothing but firm resolves of a young visionary, determined to translate the same into reality with unprecedented courage.

Conclusion:
This iconic CEO, I reckon, is doing no charity or philanthropy with his path breaking vision, as those are not certainly the purpose of any business. Neither should one do charity or philanthropy with shareholders’ money and without their clear consent. Andrew Witty, in my view, perhaps is in the same page as with the management Guru C.K. Prahalad, who first postulated, now an oft repeated hypothesis, ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’.
Witty, as I have been witnessing, has already demonstrated his prowess with the traditional pharmaceutical global business model, in a comparative yardstick. Now professionally equipped with a strong pharmaceutical marketing background, honed over so many years, I am sure, Andrew will succeed even more in curving out a lion’s share of the global pharmaceutical business for his company, in the long run, creating a win-win situation for much over six billion global people, including a vast majority of the ailing, poor, neglected, hungry and marginalized population of the world.
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.

Does the Indian Patents Act conform to Article 27 (Patentable Subject Matter) of TRIPS on the issue of ‘local working of patents’?

Posted on by
Reply

India is one of the signatories of TRIPS and has a national commitment on adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed that the amended Indian Patents Act will be TRIPS compliant.

A recent circular from CGPTD:

Recently, the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs (CGPTD) of India 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., Although this directive is again a statutory requirement, nevertheless it has given rise to many speculations in several quarters as to whether ‘importation’ of products patented in India, will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not.

The Last date for filing the information is March 31, 2010. Only history will tell us about the possible future impact of this notification.

What does Article 27.1 say in this regard?

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS, for which India is a signatory, indicates as follows on ‘local working of patents’:

“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 a product patented in India, is done in India whether through imports or local manufacturing, will be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Does Section 83 B of the Indian Patents Act conform to Article 27.1 of TRIPS?
One observes, despite Article 27.1 of TRIPS agreement, section 83 (General principles applicable to working of patented inventions) of the Indian patents Act says the following:

“(b) that they (patents) are not granted merely to enable patentees to enjoy monopoly for the importation of the patented article.”

Thus the questions that will need to be answered now are as follows:
i. Does Section 83.b conform to TRIPS 27.1?

ii. If yes, how?

iii. If not, does it merit an amendment?

iv. If the issue goes for litigation, what could the Indian High Courts likely to interpret as ‘local working of patents’?

Could it give rise to any possibility to trigger ‘Compulsory Licensing (CL)’?

For ‘Compulsory Licensing’, Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act indicates the following:

“At any time after expiration of three years from the date of the grant of patent, any person interested may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license on patent on ANY of the following grounds namely:

(a) that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention has not been satisfied, or

(b) that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonable affordable price, or

(c) that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India”

Once again, the answer to yet another question that all concerned will be interested to know is as follows:

i. What could possibly be the determinants for the India Patent Office (IPO) or High Courts to interpret, “available to the public at a reasonable affordable price?”

Conclusion:

If these two sets of questions could find conclusive answers, much of the speculations, which are now floating around on what could the information provided through ‘Form 27’ be used or misused by the interested parties, to revoke a patent on the grounds of ‘local working’ or trigger a CL under Section 84.

In my personal view establishing either of these two grounds to the IPO to derive sheer commercial benefits, could indeed be a daunting task for any interested party.

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.

Indian Patent office (IPO) asks for details of ‘working of patents’ in India – does it herald the beginning of a new chapter in the IPR regime of the country or it could trigger another raging debate

Posted on by
Reply
A Public Notice dated 24/12/2009 issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in Form No.27 on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act (as amended) read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003 ( as amended). The notice also draws attention to penalty provisions in the Patent Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.The Last date for filing the information is March 31, 2010. Only history will tell us about the possible future impact of this notification.Why is this information needed by the IPO?

Indian Patent Law specifies a provision for submission of information in Form 27 regarding the details of ‘working of a patent’ granted in India, which is a statutory requirement.

The information sought by the IPO in Form 27 can be summarized as follows:

A. For not ‘working of patent’: the reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

1. The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
2. The details to be provided if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
3. A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

NB:

• A fine of up to (USD $25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.
• Providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

What would amount to ‘Local Working of Patent’ in India?

Obviously, the question will arise what then would constitute ‘working of patent’ in the country. It is generally believed that ‘commercial exploitation’ of patented products in India will mean local ‘working of patent’ in the country.

This is still a controversial issue as some experts claim that ‘local working of patent’ can be established only through local manufacturing and thus importation of such products will not be considered as ‘local working of patent’ in India.

However, other groups of experts opine, as a signatory of article 21 (1) of TRIPS, India is under clear obligation to accept importation of a locally patented product as ‘local working of patent’.

How affordable is affordable?

Besides, ‘local working of patent’ issue, section 84.1 of the patent Act 2005 under ‘Compulsory licenses’ says:

“At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the (grant) of a patent, any person interested may make an application to the controller for grant of compulsory license on patent on any of the following grounds, namely:

a. that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or
b. that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or
c. that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.”

The question, therefore, will arise, who will determine whether a patented product is available to the public at a reasonably affordable price or not? Moreover, what will be the measure, formula or yard to stick to decide reasonably affordable price? The next question could be – reasonably affordable price for whom … for the rich minority… or for around 300 million middle class population of the country… or for another 713 million lower middle class or poorer section of the society?

How ‘affordable’ then will be considered as ‘affordable’ in such cases?

Conclusion:

Whatever may be the case, it would be interesting to know, how the Indian patent Office (IPO) would deal with these details. In any case, such information will not remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act’ will help ferret all these details out in the open.

Thus, when the ‘moment of truth’ comes, one will be quite curious to note how the proponents of ‘compulsory licensing (CL)’ would try to push their envelope hard enough on this score to establish their view points… And on the other hand how would the innovator companies establish that the price is indeed a function of the value that the product would offer… and in that process would gear themselves up with relevant and credible, possibly ‘Health Technology Assessment (HTA)’ details to establish the price premium of patented products in India to meet the ‘unmet needs of the ailing patients.’

Striking a right balance in this matter by the IPO between rewarding fruits of expensive, risky and time consuming innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population of the country, on the other, will indeed be a daunting task.

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 relevance of the Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act – the country needs all stakeholders’ open debate on the proposed bill.

Posted on by
Reply
The Bayh-Dole Act is an American legislation, which was originally sponsored by two US senators named Birch Bayh and Bob Dole. This Act deals with Intellectual Property (IP) arising out of US government funding. Bayh-Dole Act is also known as University and Small Business Patent Procedure Act. In December 12, 1980 this was enacted into a law by the US Congress.
What it does:
Under this Act, IP rights over government funded inventions for further development, license to other parties or direct commercialization are transferred to the universities and small businesses operating with government contracts. The government though retains its right to license the invention to any third party without any consent from the IP right owner or the licensee, if it feels that on a reasonable basis the public is being denied of the benefits of the invention.

The Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act:

The Utilization of the Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008, which has been formulated in line with the US Bayh-Dole Act, has already been approved by the Union Cabinet of India. This bill ensures both utilization and protection of the IP arising out of government funded research initiatives. Currently government funded academic institutions and research institutes cannot commercialize the inventions.

The proposed bill will not only allow them to patent such inventions but will also reward the inventors and the institutes with a share of its commercialization proceeds as per specific guidelines.
The bill has attracted a mixed response from the stake holders.

The relevance of Bayh-Dole Act in India:

Relevance of Indian version of the Bayh-Doll Bill in the post product patent regime in India is
significant. The core concept of the bill encourages innovation and ensures protection of patents and other forms of IP rights of the government funded R&D outcomes, where the owner of the intellectual property will be the government grant receipients or the government.

This bill is expected to offer to various research institutions, universities, small businesses and non-profit organizations, the IP rights on their inventions, resulted from the government funding. Overall environment towards innovation within the country is expected to get a boost in that process.

Is the ownership and protection of R&D a real remedy to make government academic institutions and universities self sustainable?

This is certainly not the only remedy, but an important one. This process will have significant potential to effectively facilitate technology transfer from government funded research laboratories or universities to the user industry to make these establishments self-sustainable.

What are the main implications of the bill if enacted in its current form?

Although the fine prints of the bill are not yet clearly known, the bill in its current form raises more questions than answers. Some of the concerns with the bill in its current form are as follows:

- This law could effectively transfer the decision making process about
publications of the research papers from the researchers and academia to
the bureaucrats in the government establishments, making the R&D
environment quite stifling for the researchers and the initiative
counterproductive.

- Academia at times will be compelled to incur significant expenditures
towards different types of IPR related litigation, which could have been
otherwise productively spent by these institutions towards research
initiatives.

- The learning and research may get transformed into another kind of
businesses activity, as such a law could change the research focus on to
the issues, which will be of greater commercial interest to various
industries and will offer immediate financial benefits to the
institutions. As a result vital non-commercial research, which could be of
critical interest to the nation as such, may take a back seat.

Conclusion:

The country will therefore need an extensive public debate on this bill, which has not taken place, as yet. The loose knots of the bill need to be tightened and the concerns of the stakeholders need to be adequately addressed before its enactment into a law.

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.