Asia-Pacific, Bitter Pill: Obstacles to Affordable Medicine, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors' Choice, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IBSA, Population, Poverty & MDGs, Projects, Regional Categories, South-South, Southern Aid & Trade, Trade & Investment, World

Q&A: A Healthy Verdict from India

Gustavo Capdevila interviews GERMÁN VELÁSQUEZ, former WHO official

GENEVA, Apr 5 2013 (IPS) - India’s refusal to grant patent protection for the anti-cancer drug Glivec, developed by Swiss drugmaker Novartis, is a victory for the developing world, which depends on low-cost exports of generic medicines from the Asian giant, said public health specialist Germán Velásquez.

The triumph celebrated by the Colombian expert, who is a special adviser for health and development at the South Centre, was a landmark ruling against Novartis handed down Monday Apr. 1 by India’s Supreme Court.

The Geneva-based South Centre is an intergovernmental organisation of more than 50 developing countries that functions as an independent policy think tank.

Velásquez, who worked for over 20 years in the World Health Organization, explains in this interview with IPS his point of view on the legal battle in the courts in New Delhi and its consequences for developing countries.

Q: How do you interpret the ruling by the Supreme Court of India?

A: There are problems with the information that is being reported. Nearly everyone says that India rejected the patent for Glivec. That’s true, but it’s not all the verdict says.

Q: Could you explain?

A: At the heart of the verdict is the ratification of the criteria set by the Indian law for the approval of drug patents. That is, whether or not it meets the requisite of containing a genuine innovation.

Q: Could you describe the legal battle?

A: It all starts with the adoption of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), one of the treaties established at the same time the WHO was born, in 1995.

India was the only developing country to use the (entire 10-year) transition period to enforce TRIPS, in 2005, when it passed the patent act.

Q: What happened to the patent applications presented during that decade-long transition?

A: They accumulated, until there were around 10,000 applications, and it was not until 2005 that the patent office began to examine them. They included the application for the Glivec patent.

But the new standards turned out to be stricter, such as the one that indicates that the innovation can’t be just a small change to a molecule, but has to be something substantial. In short, the patent for local sales of Glivec was denied in 2006.

Q: How does the story continue from there?

A: Novartis challenged that decision and brought a lawsuit in a court in the city of Madras (the capital of the southern state of Tamil Nadu; the city was renamed Chennai in 1996.) But the High Court of that city, three years later, also rejected the application. That year, 2009, the company appealed the decision – and lost again.

Q: What options are left to the company?

A: This is the aspect that hasn’t been sufficiently reported. In a cynical, perverse and very serious move, Novartis says (prior to the ruling): “If they didn’t give me the patent, I’ll go to the Supreme Court, but to ask this time for the elimination of the strict criterion established in article 3 of the patent act.”

“If more flexible, lower standards are set, then my medicine will be in,” was its reasoning.

Q: So the dispute took on this other face?

A: Yes, because with the intention of introducing its drug by force, the transnational corporation was trying to modify the law of a country – and of a country like India. I think that its executives were being short-sighted when they made that decision. This has been very costly for them in terms of their image.

Q: How do you reach that conclusion?

A: It is clear that it was a misstep to denounce India’s patent law, with the risk of losing. The transnational industry in general had suffered a blunder in South Africa, when it was forced in 2001 to back down from legal action against a law that authorised the patenting of lower-price imported medicines in order to address the AIDS epidemic.

You could suppose that “Big Pharma”, as the major pharmaceutical companies are called, had learned the lesson. Especially knowing that Glivec was patented in 40 countries, including the United States, China and Russia.

Q: Are you insinuating that there may be a domino effect?

A: If Novartis loses in India, as it did on Monday, any of the governments of the 40 countries could ask themselves: “Why don’t I review that patent and revoke it?” That authority is granted by the legislation of all of those countries.

Q: What standing do those 40 countries that recognise the Glivec patent have?

A: Most of them are industrialised states, large markets. But they also include some that are currently experiencing severe economic difficulties, like Greece or Spain, whose authorities could ask themselves why they should pay 2,500 dollars a month per person for a treatment against cancer. They could say: “Why don’t I just have it produced as a generic drug, and invalidate this patent.”

I think the Novartis executives did not take that into account when they launched this legal battle. Obviously, after the first impetus, they continued on to the end, and today they’re going to see repercussions.

Q: What could those consequences be?

A: It should be a lesson for the rest of the countries of the developing South. They should try to follow India’s example and introduce in their legislation clauses like the ones contained in article 3d, which restricts and sets criteria with respect to what amounts to innovation, which is necessary in order to grant a patent. That there can’t just be a small change, which is sometimes merely cosmetic, to a molecule in the medication.

Q: What prospect is there for the spread of that criterion?

A: In India, the Philippines and Argentina, that prohibition already exists, while others are introducing it through alternative routes.

Q: And other consequences?

A: India will be able to continue to make generic versions of all new medicines that are not truly original, and it will continue exporting them without any problem. It’s necessary to take into account the fact that 95 percent of the antiretrovirals consumed in Africa come from that Asian country.

So that means the Indian Court’s ruling is extremely important, with very concrete repercussions for that medicine and some 10,000 others that are on the waiting list in the patent office in New Delhi.

Q: What percentage of those could get patents?

A: In 2010, Argentina approved 2,000 pharmaceutical patents, and China 4,000. But actually, just 40 or 50 products a year are true innovations.

Q: Why that enormous difference between patents that are granted and truly innovative products?

A: The pharmaceutical industry is facing huge difficulties in coming up with innovations.

So it clings to a very short-sighted way of thinking, very short-term, but enormously profitable. This consists of launching incremental innovations, as they are called – in other words, a small product with just a gradual change, but accompanied by a major marketing campaign.

 
Republish | | Print | |En español
X
NEXT STOP SDGS
  • Tracking global progress towards a sustainable world

Weekly Newsletter