GENERIC DRUGS
conditions. Six months aſter such an unsuccessful attempt, an application for the compulsory licence can be made to the controller.
The decision
In this case, the controller’s verdict was that Natco’s efforts were sufficient in seeking the voluntary licence from Bayer, and that not one, but all criteria were met for issuing the compulsory licence.
When determining the market demand for sorafenib, and conceding the lack of evidence and data, the controller assumed the number of liver cancer patients in India to be 20,000, and kidney cancer patients to be 8,900 as per the statistics of Globocan 2008, a World Health Organization project. To evaluate the supply of the drug, rejecting Bayer’s plea of taking into account the supply by alleged infringer Cipla, relying on the Form 27 submitted by Bayer as a statement of working for 2009, 2010 and information furnished for 2011, the controller held the supply to be very insignificant and hence the “reasonable requirement of the public”, as per the Indian Patents Act, had not been met.
Deciding on the affordability issue, the controller pronounced that the cost of $5,500 for one month’s supply of Nexavar was unaffordable to patients in India and that alone was the reason Nexaver was not bought by the public.
Concerning the working of an invention in India, the controller strictly equated it with manufacturing in India. Te controller asserted that despite having manufacturing facilities in India, Bayer did not manufacture the drug in India but only imported it, and hence failed to meet the working requirement.
Te controller also rejected Bayer’s request to adjourn the compulsory licence application. Bayer contended that it could not work the invention to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable since alleged infringer Cipla, which was selling the drug at one-tenth of the Nexavar price, undercut Bayer’s market share. Te controller, however, held that Bayer had sufficient time to adopt a suitable strategy and work the invention.
Terms and conditions
Te controller granted a non-exclusive compulsory licence to Natco under certain terms and conditions. Natco will have to sell the generic version of Nexavar for a price not exceeding $175 for a month’s supply. While the $5,500 of Bayer’s Nexavar is considered to be exorbitant, this order does not seem to analyse the costing provided by Natco, according to which the cost of the drug is about 50 percent and the balance is towards various margins. Dealing with the royalty issue, although Bayer had asked for a 15 percent royalty, going by the recommendations of
www.worldipreview.com
Such disclosure fuels and fosters further innovation, makes available newer technologies, brings cures to diseases, reduces suffering and makes human life better. Also, innovations help in making existing inventions more economical. It is this invention cycle which brings competition in research as well as in the market place.
India has sufficiently established itself as a knowledge-based economy, and such compulsory licences should not contravene India’s commitment towards becoming not only a global economy, but also a technologically advanced nation.
Market share of Nexavar is estimated to be about $50 to 60 million in India. Natco will now be able to reap the benefit of this market share, having acquired the compulsory licence.
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the controller set it at 6 percent of sales, to be paid on a quarterly basis. Also, the order mandates Natco to provide the drug free of cost to at least 600 needy patients per year. Tis licence will be valid until expiry of the patent in 2021.
As per the last condition of the order, Bayer has the option of giving a licence to any partner of its choice and competing with Natco.
The implications: good or bad?
Whether the compulsory licence granted by the controller is maintainable at appellate board or higher courts when challenged, remains to be seen. It does have bearings in many different ways on patients, the medical system, industry, the economy, the nation and maybe on the legal system as well.
Tis decision seems to bring a respite for a particular group of patients in terms of affordability. However, is a compulsory licence an appropriate means to address the issue of healthcare affordability?
Te patent system’s prime function is to provide the possibility of rewarding innovators for promotion of technological, as well as economical, advancements and the dissemination of the technology. Innovator pharmaceutical companies spend a great deal to keep their research pipeline bustling, and go over many hurdles of regulatory and other onerous processes in the hope that aſter umpteen failures, one product will be made available to patients in fighting disease.
Aſter all that has been done, the generic company has to find a different way of making that molecule. It does not seem realistic to compare the cost of getting an innovative drug to market with that of its generic version. Te controller grants a patent and exclusive right in return of the disclosure of the invention.
World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012 35
Mita Sheikh is a patent associate with the life sciences and chemistry department of Krishna & Saurastri. She can be contacted at:
mita@krishnaandsaurastri.com
Bayer’s bottom line may not be affected with the grant of this compulsory licence but it will definitely impact on Bayer’s, as well as other innovator companies’, future strategies of obtaining and enforcing patent rights alongside having a manufacturing and marketing strategy in place to retain the monopolistic rights and ward off such situations.
As growth continues in the emerging markets, including India, innovator companies will come up with innovative ways to expand and grow in these territories. n
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180