Tag Archives: Ray

Biosimilars: Creating new vistas of opportunities for Indian Bio Pharmaceutical players in the global market.

Posted on by
Reply

Biosimilar or follow-on biologic drugs market is fast evolving across the world with varying degree of pace and stages of developments. The global market for Bio-pharmaceuticals was around US$ 120 billion in 2008, as reported by IMS. However, total turnover of Biosimilar drugs in the regulated markets during the same period was just US$ 60 million.

Currently about 25% of New Molecular Entities (NMEs) under development are of biotech origin. Indian pharmaceutical majors like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Reliance Life Science, Shantha Biotech, Ranbaxy, Biocon, Wockhardt and Glenmark have made good investments in biotech drugs manufacturing facilities keeping an eye on the emerging opportunities with Biosimilar drugs in the developed markets of the world.

International Scenario:

Internationally most known companies in the Biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz.

The first R&D focused global pharmaceutical company that expressed interest in this space is Merck & Co. In December 2008 Merck announced creation of ‘Merck Bio Venture’ for this purpose with an investment commitment of around US$ 1.5 billion by 2015.

Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of Biosimilar drugs are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Eli Lilly.

Future market Potential:

IMS Health, July 2009 reports that only in the US from 2009 to 2013 about 8 major biologic products like for example, Enbrel (Amgen/J&J), Lovenox (Sanofi-Aventis), Zoladex (AstraZeneca), Mabthera (Roche), Humalog (Eli Lilly) and Novorapid (Novo Nordisk) are expected to go off patent. The sum total of revenue from these drugs will be over U.S$ 15 billion.

This throws open immense opportunities for the Indian companies working on Biosimilar drug development initiatives.

Regulatory pathway for Biosimilar drugs:

Currently EU is the largest Biosimilar market in the world. Immense healthcare cost containment pressure together with a large number of high value biologics going off patent during next five years, especially in the developed western markets like US and EU, are creating a new vista of opportunities in this field to the potential players.

Regulatory pathway for Biosimilar drugs exists in the European Union (EU) since 2005. In the USA President Barak Obama administration has already expressed its clear intention to have similar pathway established in the country through the US-FDA, which is expected to come by 2010.

Steps taken by the Indian pharmaceutical companies towards this direction:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body, and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF. Meanwhile Biocon of Bangalore has commenced clinical trial of Insugen for the regulated markets like EU.

On the other hand Glenmark is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2010 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Within Biopharmaceuticals the focus is on Oncology:

Within Biopharmaceuticals many of these domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by 2010 growing over 17%. As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend on this particular therapy area. About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products:

Current size of the Indian oncology market is around US$ 18.6 million, which is expected to be over US$ 50 million by the end of 2010; the main reason being all these are and will be very expensive products. Biocon has just launched its monoclonal antibody based drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumours with an eye to introduce this product in the western markets, as soon as they can get regulatory approval from these countries. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Conclusion:

As the R&D based global innovator companies are now expanding into the Biosimilar space, many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are also poised to leverage their R&D initiatives on Biosimilars drugs development to fully encash the emerging global opportunities in this space. It is quite prudent for the Indian players to focus on the Oncology therapy area, as it is now the fastest growing segment in 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.

Collaborative commercialization of inexpensive smaller incremental innovation in Chemistry will play an important role in bringing affordable new drugs or new drug delivery systems

Posted on by
Reply

It started in the 17th century:

Alchemy, a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, searching for a universal cure for disease and indefinitely prolonging life, not considered a science by many, gradually became the basis for the development of chemistry into the 17th century. However, perceivable impact of chemistry on humanity, through its smaller incremental innovation, started being felt only in the second half of the 19th century.

Chemistry – an interface between the physical world and humanity:

Experts in this field often opine that the current form of human civilization has been made possible, to a great extent, through significant advancement of such innovation in chemistry and its role in modern technology. Chemistry is indeed an interface between the physical world on the one hand and the humanity on the other.

Getting a perspective of resource and time requirements for such initiatives:

Is there any similarity between development of pharmaceutical chemistry and IT software?

Now a days, one finds a striking similarity between small incremental innovation in IT software and the same in pharmaceutical chemistry. Both are creative and belong to the knowledge economy. Scientists in both the communities try to generate innovative ideas, which can lead to their effective commercialization.

Resource requirements for these two are strikingly different:

However, the nature of the commercialization process of these two sciences, though seemingly similar in terms of innovativeness, is indeed quite different. In the software community, two people can implement an idea with minimal resource requirement and could end up with a profitable commercialized product, without much difficulty. In contrast, two chemists may come up with a brilliant idea, which in many cases, may require significant investment of resources much before to even think to get the initial product commercialized. Subsequent steps of scaling up will be a separate issue altogether, with more resource commitment.

The process of commercialization of smaller incremental innovation in pharmaceutical chemistry is much longer:

As we all know, the process of commercialization of incremental innovation in chemistry takes a much longer time scale, as these are not usually spare time projects, unlike computer softwares. The cost involved in testing out and implementing a new idea in chemistry is very high and may not even be possible without any robust institutional backing.

Target inexpensive smaller incremental innovation in pharmaceutical chemistry:

Some illustrative examples of such smaller incremental innovation in chemistry are as follows:

1. Development of pharmaceutical co-crystals

2. Merger of chemistry of traditional and modern medicines for synergy in both efficacy and safety

3. Chemical technology switch: taking technology of one field and transferring it to a different field to get a new drug substance

4. Application of polymorphic chemistry in drug discovery.

The process has begun:

International experience:

The chemistry department of Oxford University, U.K, which is incidentally the biggest chemistry department of the western world, has made significant advances in commercializing incremental innovation in chemistry. Among many, they created and commercialized the following three entities through such incremental innovation:

• Medisense

• Oxford Molecular

• Oxford Assymetry

The Indian experience:

Despite all challenges, in India, as well, the commercialization process of smaller incremental innovation in chemistry has already begun. The Chemistry Department of the University of Delhi has developed 11 patentable technologies for improved drug delivery system using nano-particles. One of such technologies was development of ‘smart’ hydrogel nano-particles for encapsulating water-soluble drugs. This technology was sold to Dabur Research Foundation in 1999.

Another nano-particle drug delivery technology in opthalmogy area was also commercialized by transferring it to Chandigarh based Panacea Biotech Ltd.

Conclusion:

This process is expected to gain momentum in our country too, contributing significantly to the progress of the healthcare sector of the nation. “Commercializing smaller incremental innovation in Pharmaceutical Chemistry”, I reckon, will play a key role in providing affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population, as India transforms itself into a knowledge superpower.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

Global awareness dawned early:

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

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

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

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

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

The key question:

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

Top 10 environment polluters of the world:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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

Recent global meet on climate change in Copenhagen: what were achieved and what were not.

Posted on by
Reply

Long before the commencement of Copenhagen climate change meet, many from all over the world started talking passionately about the “dangerous climate change”, which as we know deals with the issue of increase of global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius (2C) from the preindustrial level.

This issue was discussed at length in Copenhagen and an accord was ultimately announced on December 18, 2009 followed by a plenary session on December 19, 2009.

What does it say?

The Accord is a 12-paragraph document of statement of intents and non-binding pledges to address the “dangerous climate change” issues.

Towards this direction the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at Copenhagen recommended even to the developed countries of the world to reduce carbon emission from their respective 1990 level by not less than 25% by 2020, from when the global carbon emission is expected to start declining.

USA and China were the key partners of IPCC with a strong supporting role played by Brazil, South Africa and India to have an accord that suits the emerging large developing economies of the world. The accord though recommends to the developed countries, barring the US, to ensure their carbon emission cuts, but not under the Kyoto Protocol. Most influential 26 countries of the world agreed with this accord and other 192 countries, though appeared to be unhappy in the plenary session, accepted the same with their ‘silence’, which perhaps means indirect consent.

The key points of the accord:

The main points of the Copenhagen Accord are as follows:

• Cooperation by all in containing emissions within 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

• To reduce carbon emission, the developing nations will report in every two years on their non-binding voluntary actions. This report will be subject to international consultations and analysis.

• US $ 10 billion each year will be financed by the developed countries for a three-year program to pay for the projects taken up by the poorer nations to develop clean energy and effectively address drought and other climate-change impacts.

• A goal of mobilizing US $ 100 billion per year by 2020 was also set for achieving the same objectives.

Is this accord a triumph of USA or China or the BASIC countries?

This accord is seen by some as a triumph of the USA to influence the ultimate outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit. US President Barack Obama, in fact, brought back the negotiation from the brink of collapse, at the last minute, through hectic negotiation with the heads of states of Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC countries).

What will the success of the summit depend upon?

The success of this accord will depend on whether the USA will be able to live up to its promises to reduce carbon emissions in their own country and help other countries to address the same by raising billions of dollars.

BASIC countries, especially China, emerged stronger:

The process of this accord also witnessed China coming stronger leveraging their clout in a multilateral forum of the African continent, which is very rich in various valuable natural resources. However, many other less powerful nations, as said earlier, felt left out in this deal brokered mainly by the US initiative and interest.

Thus even after reaching the accord, at the plenary session on the last Saturday, a large number of speakers from the developing nations sharply criticized the deal alleging it as a pact meant only for the rich and BASIC countries.

Lack of a clear roadmap:

Be that as it may, without a clear road map for research and development of low-carbon technologies and no binding collective carbon emission target, achieving 2C by 2020 still remains a pipe dream.

Conclusion:

After the Copenhagen Accord, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC), the four large emerging economies of the world, were immensely successful to display their joint muscle power to the world as a whole, clearly emerging as a major combined force to reckon with, especially by the developed nations of the world lead by the USA.

However, many will strongly feel that interests of smaller and poorer nations of the world were sacrificed in this first global agreement of the century on climate change at Copenhagen.

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.

Regulatory Data Protection and Indian Interest

Posted on by
Reply

Of late, I read and hear raging debates, especially through media, on the relevance of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) or Data Exclusivity in India. This issue is being considered by many as a fight between the commercial interests of multinational and the domestic Indian companies. In this fight the provision for RDP is being highlighted as something, which is against our national interest.

In this scenario, I shall try to argue that in our country, on the contrary, a provision for a robust RDP mechanism, which will protect clinical trial data of ANY innovator both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, is in the best interest of India, at least, for the following four important reasons:

1. RDP to benefit even small to medium size domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies:

Small to medium size pharmaceutical companies in India, who do not have adequate wherewithal to get engaged in drug discovery research, will also be benefitted from RDP. They will be able to obtain data exclusivity for a specific period on the new clinical data that they will be generating for new fixed dose combinations (FDC), new medical uses and new formulations of medicines. This will help them create more resources to invest in R&D to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

2. RDP on traditional medicines to benefit Indian Pharmaceutical companies:

Rich reservoir of Indian traditional medicines, commonly categorized under Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha, are being used by a large majority of Indian populations over centuries. Such medicines are not protected by product patents, as such.

Further clinical development of these traditional medicines for greater efficacy and safety profile or newer usage, even if the ultimate product is not patentable, will help the common man immensely with affordable medicines.

The new clinical data generated by the researcher for such initiatives will be protected through RDP for a specific time period both against disclosure and unfair commercial use to make such efforts commercially viable and attractive.

RDP in this way can help the researcher to invest in the R&D of traditional plant based or similar medicines, which are not protected by any product patent. This in turn will help many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in less cost intensive R&D with a robust economic model, built around RDP or data exclusivity.

3. RDP to boost outsourcing of clinical trials to India:

As per CII, clinical trials market in India is currently growing at 30-35%. McKinsey estimated that EU and US based pharmaceutical companies will spend US$ 1.5 billion per year on clinical trials in India by 2010. Currently China with 5 year regulatory data protection in place is having significant edge over India in this area.

Many CROs have started making investments in India to create world class clinical trial facilities to encash this opportunity. Such investments, both domestic as well as in form of FDI, are expected to further increase, if an effective RDP mechanism is created within the country.

4. RDP to help Competition from China:

Despite some significant inherent weaknesses of China, as compared to India, in terms of a preferred global pharmaceutical business destination, China is fast outpacing India in R&D related activities. More number of global R&D based pharmaceutical companies has started investing quite significantly in China. One of the key reasons for such development is that China provides product patent, patent linkage and RDP, whereas India provides only product patent.

R&D based global pharmaceutical and biotech companies who want a robust IPR regime in the countries where they will invest more, therefore, prefer China to India in terms of FDI.

A robust RDP mechanism in India would help bridging this gap considerably.

Conclusion:

There is a widespread apprehension in some quarters in India that RDP will delay the entry of cheaper generic drugs in the country. This apprehension seems to be unfounded.

Unlike product patent, RDP will not provide any market exclusivity even within the specified period of RDP. Any generic manufacturer can generate its own regulatory data and obtain marketing approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to market a non patent related product in the country, just as in any developed market of the world. Thus RDP will not delay any generic entry into the market.

My final argument, if the provision for RDP or Data Exclusivity will delay the entry of cheaper generic medicines into India, why the same is not happening in the developed markets of the world like, USA, EU, Japan and even in China, despite having a robust provision for RDP or Data Exclusivity firmly in place in each of these countries?

Thus in my view, the provision for RDP in India is undoubtedly in the best interest of our country.

By Tapan Ray

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

IPR, Biodiversity and India

Posted on by
Reply

The issue of conservation of the biological resources of a country, whether these are local crops or useful plant varieties, available in remote areas of the country, has become a subject of debate in the paradigm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The use of local knowledge and the traditional use of these biological resources are interwoven in the cultural milieu of a region.

Two major international agreements:

Following two major international agreements deal with this issue:

1. The Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)

2. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

It is worth mentioning that countries like, India, Mexico, Philippines, Peru etc, are coming up with the local country-specific legislation to effectively deal with this issue.

Experts’ Views:

Many experts suggest that IPR may be judiciously used to effectively protect the biological resources. Such use of IPR may range from preventing misappropriation to significant increase in utilization of various resources and investments towards their conservation.

However, others express quite a different view, voicing that the IPR system may work against conservation of biological resources by ‘undermining the knowledge system, culture and social structure.’

Recently there was a suggestion that each country should take some well articulated legal steps to conserve its precious biological resources. It must ensure that only those steps, which are compatible with the concept of ownership and the value system of the local population, are to be taken into account during IPR system of negotiation, related to such biological resources. These experts argue that an IPR system must support appropriate conservation through effective management of biodiversity.

There is yet another totally different school of thought leaders, who nurture a very strong view, which is as follows:

“The history of IPRs shows that the monopolistic hold of governments, corporations and some individuals over biological resources and related knowledge is continuously increasing. A substantial amount of this monopolisation is built upon, and through the appropriation of, the resources conserved and knowledge generated by indigenous and local communities.”

Some IPR related ‘scandals’ in this area:

Activities like the following, which are treated as IPR related scandals keep sending shock waves to many:

1. A Patent was granted vide the US Patent No. 5,401,504, to the healing properties of the ancient Indian herbal remedies turmeric ,which is a traditional knowledge to the Indians, since many centuries.

2. A Patent was granted vide the US Patent No. 5,663,484 to varieties of Basmati rice grown traditionally in both North India and Pakistan.

3. A Patent was granted vide the US Patent No. 5,397,696 to human cell line (human genetic material) of a Hagahai tribesman from Papua New Guinea.

These are just illustrative examples and not exhaustive.

Steps taken by some developing countries:

Alarmed by all these developments, some of the developing countries of the world are seriously contemplating the following:

1. Preventing indigenous traditional knowledge from being “pirated” with IPR claims driven solely by commercial interests.

2. Restricting access to biological resources with appropriate regulatory measures.

Measures taken by India:

A. Legal measures have now been taken by India to address this issue:

1. New plant varieties can now be protected in India under the New Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Protection Actin 2001 and cannot be protected through patents.

2. Protection of ‘Geographical Indications (GI)’, which identify goods as originating in the territory of a member or a region or a locality in that territory, where a given quality reputation or other characteristics of the goods is attributable to their geographical origin.

4. For registration of GI, all applicants will require applying in writing to the Registrar for the registration of such indications.

B. Following GIs cannot be registered in India :

• Use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion or contrary to any law.

• Comprising or containing scandalous or obscene matter or any matter likely to hurt religion susceptibility of any class or section of citizens of India.

• Which would otherwise be disentitled to protection in a court.

• Which are determined to be in generic names and are not or ceased to be protected in their country of origin or which have fallen into disuse in that country.

• Which, although literally true as to the territory, region or locality in which the goods originate, but falsely represent to the persons that the goods originate in another territory, region or locality.

C. Punishment for falsifying a Geographical Indication:

A sentence of imprisonment for a term between six months to three years and a fine between fifty thousand rupees and two lakh rupees is provided in the Act. The court may reduce the punishment under special circumstances.

D. Term of GI protection:

The registration of a GI shall be for a period of ten years but may be renewed from time to time for an unlimited period by payment of the renewal fees.

Conclusion:

Detailed studies regarding the involvement of community in conservation and protection of biodiversity along with their drivers and barriers will be of immense use. One-dimensional view of innovation, based only on profit motive, in the space of biodiversity and food security, especially for the developing countries, like India, calls for more enlightened debate within the civil society.

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 offices (IPOs) have started showing improvement in their functioning; still lot of grounds to cover.

Posted on by
Reply

Indian Patent offices are located, with four clearly specified jurisdictions, at New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai.

Since last few years enough efforts have been made towards overall capacity building initiatives, training of personnel and digitalizing the huge databank of these offices, with wide scale application of information technology (IT). As a result the patent offices are now having almost a centralized database to provide online services to the users in various areas of their operations. Users are now having the facilities of not only online patent search, but also for online patent applications.

More extensive IT applications are required to achieve greater system efficiency and transparency:

However, to bring in more efficiency and transparency in the system, there is a need to introduce appropriate IT applications in all the transactional interfaces between the patent office personnel and the patent applicants.

Still there are lots of grounds to cover:

Following are the key areas which should be taken care of by the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trade marks (CGPDTM) to make the IPOs more efficient, transparent and effective:

1. The Patent Manual, which provides essential guidelines to the patent examiners to bring in uniformity in the patent application examination process, is long overdue.

2. Many patent applicants feel that there is a need to include the International Non-proprietary Names (INN) in the title of pharmaceutical patent applications by the IPO.

3. Inadequate bandwidth makes the IT system slow, reducing its operational efficiency.

4. 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 applications online, adding more speed to the process.

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

6. Despite new technological measures most patent officers and also the public in general are still following the traditional method of filing the patent applications due to the ease and authenticity of filing records. To encourage applicants to file applications electronically, incentives such as reduced fees may be offered to those who file their applications electronically.

7. The IPOs should digitize all the physical files lying with them, so that file histories of each application are available online.

8. The Patent offices should have designated centres to provide assistance to applicants for filing or prosecuting applications.

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

10. In order to introduce an efficient system of patent prosecution, it is recommended that the IPOs 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 IPOs.

11. Decision making and its communication to all concerned to be made faster at the IPOs. 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 increase in the waiting period for 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. As a result they are unable to initiate infringement proceedings against infringers quickly, defeating the very purpose of the patent system.

12. The timeline for an application, which will be taken up for examination, needs to be clearly defined. Currently, there is no time-line defined for taking up the applications for examination.

Conclusion:

All concerned will feel happy, if the DIPP in general and the CGPDTM in particular take note of these suggestions and formalize a process within the IPOs to address these important issues.

Growing discontentment of the past, in several areas of operation within the IPOs, is now being effectively addressed. However, the system still warrants more capacity building to enable the IPOs provide world class services to the patent applicants. This process needs to be expedited to further enhance the credibility of the new IPR regime in India.

By Tapan Ray

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

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) and its need in India: The Myth versus Reality

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

Some in India feel that Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), is a deliberate attempt by the innovator companies to delay the launch of the generic equivalent of patented products in India, as long as they possibly can.

Thus they feel that why should one re-invent the wheel? Why should the generic pharmaceutical companies be not allowed to continue with the current requirement by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to establish only the ‘bio-equivalence of an innovator drug to get the marketing approval of the generic equivalent in India?

RDP will effect export in non-regulated markets:
They further argue that India currently exports its pharmaceutical products to around 50 non-regulated markets of the world. Thus the enforcement of RDP would jeopardize Indian Pharmaceutical exports in those countries affecting the economy of the country.

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

Regarding Article 39(3) of TRIPS, which indicates protection of regulatory data against “disclosure” and “unfair-commercial use”, this group opines that this is a non-binding Article of TRIPS, neither does it specify any timeline to protect such data. Moreover, they feel, that only the “undisclosed data” may be protected and the data already “disclosed” ‘need not to be protected’.

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

The proponents of this interpretation believe that RDP is just an attempt to “evergreen” a patent, extending the patent life of a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or (NME) beyond 20 years.

THE REALITY:

Just Like Patents, Regulatory Data need to be protected to encourage innovation in India:

This group feels that generation of exhaustive regulatory data entails very significant investment in terms of money, energy and time. These are very high risk investments as approximately one in 5000 molecules researched will eventually see the light of the day in the market place. It is worth noting that clinical development of an NCE/NME costs around 70%, while the cost of discovery of the same NCE/NME is around 30% of the total costs. It is estimated that the entire process of drug development from discovery to market takes an average of 10 years and costs on an average U.S.$ 1.7 Billion in the developed markets of the world.

Since such voluminous regulatory data are not only costly and time consuming but also proprietary in nature, these need to be protected by the regulators. Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), therefore, has been widely recognized as an integral part of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) also recognizes the “protection of undisclosed information” as being an Intellectual Property, which needs to be protected.

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

“Members, when requiring, as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.”

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) mentioned in Article 39.3 of TRIPS are commonly referred to as “Data Exclusivity” in the U.S. and “Data Protection” or “Regulatory Data Protection” in the European Union (EU). These are all the very same.

RDP is an independent IPR; and should not be confused with other IPRs, such as patents:

Bringing an NCE/NME to the market involves two critical steps:

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

The drug discovery right of the originator is protected in the form of a patent.

2. Drug development:

The innovator will require generating intensive, time consuming and expensive pre-clinical and
clinical data to meet the regulatory needs for bringing the new drug to the market. Such data
needs to be protected by the drug regulators.

It is understood that both the above steps are absolutely necessary to meet the unmet needs of the patients. The civil society gets the benefits of the new drugs only after these two steps are successfully completed.

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, RDP is clearly justifiable on the following grounds:

Generation of Data by the originator consists of “considerable efforts”. Submission of clinical data is a statutory regulatory requirement. Were it not for the obligation to provide these data to the Government, such data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation on the part of the Government as a ‘gate keeper’ to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure. Any failure by the Government to provide required protection to the data could lead to “unfair commercial use”.

Since such data are collected through various phases of clinical evaluation, involving considerable costs, time and energy, these are immensely valuable to the originator and need to be adequately protected by the drug regulators.

As these data are proprietary in nature, any access or permissibility for use of such data by the second applicant without concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.

Given the imbalance between the costs to the originator of getting marketing approval for its product and the costs of the ‘copy cat’ coming to the market, the research based industry will not have adequate incentive without RDP to continue to get engaged in important R&D activities. In that scenario, newer and better drugs, particularly for untreated and under-treated medical conditions will not be available to the patients.

Without RDP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair, commercial disadvantage when compared to their generic competitors, who do not incur similar costs of meeting the mandatory requirements of drug regulatory authorities for marketing approval of the drug.

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

RDP will not affect exports of Indian pharmaceutical products to the non-regulated markets:

This is because RDP deals with marketing of products patented in India within the territory of India. RDP will in no way affect the ability of any generic manufacturer either to produce the bulk drug active or to formulate its dosage forms for exports in the non-regulated markets, as long as the product is not sold within the territory of India for which both the patent and RDP will be valid.

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), lack of RDP in India is the primary reason why India ranks only 9th (compared to China which ranks 2nd), in funding given by NIH outside U.S.A.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted significance of Regulatory Data Protection, as below:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

RDP – The International Scenario:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of RDP.

Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the laws related to RDP, there is however a common principle that is followed. The laws generally specify the conditions under which Regulatory Data Protection can be sought and the period for which the “originator” can enjoy the exclusivity after the marketing approval is granted in the country. The period of RDP is typically between 5 – 10 years.

As per an article titled “Complying with Article 39.3 of TRIPs… A Myth or Evolving Reality” by Dr. Prabuddha Ganguli, around sixty nations around the world including China follow RDP in their respective countries.

RDP and the generics:

Regarding the arguments that RDP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, resulting in the erosion of generics market. This argument is based on invalid assumptions. The following facts will prove the irrelevance of these arguments propounded by the domestic generic lobby:

1. Data Protection refers only to new products registered/patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

2. U.S.A. is an outstanding example which shows that research based industry and generic industry can co-exist, giving dual benefits of innovative medicines and cheaper copies of off-patent medicines to the general public.

3. More the patented medicines, more will be generic drugs after expiry of their patents.

4. In the U.S.A. which has a long standing Data Protection (Exclusivity) regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at nearly half of all the prescriptions.

5. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984, which provided for a 5 year period of Data Protection, there has been a spurt of development of new drugs as also entry of off-patent generics into the US market.

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and RDP will run concurrently. The ground reality will be that innovator companies will launch their products in India within as short a time gap as possible from the launch of those products anywhere in the world. The period between introduction of new drugs elsewhere and their introduction in India has been continuously shrinking. The range of such period between 1965 and 1988 was 4 years to 13 years. The period during 1990 to 1999 ranges between 0.25 year and less than 2 years.

During the debate on Data Protection it is asserted in some quarters that RDP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not, by any means. Fundamentally, the two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. RDP cannot extend the length of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, RDP protects invaluable clinical dossier submitted to the drugs regulatory authority, from unfair commercial use and disclosure. The duration of RDP, as stated above, is typically half or less of the product patent life.

Conclusions:

In my view RDP will benefit the pharmaceutical innovation eco system India, as it has done to many other countries. Hence India should implement RDP without further delay. It will be reasonable to have a provision of at least 5 years of RDP from the date of marketing approval in India, on the same lines as China.

RDP should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to bring India into conformity with its international legal obligations and with the practices of other members of the WTO from both the developed and developing nations of the world.

These provisions, in my view, will go a long way in sending a very positive signal to the international community as well as to our own research based pharmaceutical companies to accelerate investment in this vital sector making India emerge as a global powerhouse in pharmaceuticals, sooner than later.

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.