Preserving patent policy space and securing access to medicines in developing countries: the role of states and pharmaceutical corporations

This thesis examines the tension between patent rights and the right to health and it recognizes patent rights on pharmaceutical products as one of the factors responsible for the problem of lack of access to affordable medicines in developing countries. The thesis contends that, in order to preserve their patent policy space and secure access to affordable medicines for their citizens, developing countries should incorporate a model of human rights into the design, implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of their national patent laws. The thesis provides a systematic analysis of court decisions from four key developing countries (Brazil, India, Kenya, and South Africa) and it assesses how the national courts in these countries resolve the tension between patent rights and the right to health. Essentially, this thesis demonstrates how a model of human rights can be incorporated into the adjudication of disputes involving patent rights in national courts. Focusing specifically on Brazil, the thesis equally demonstrates how policy makers and law makers at the national level can incorporate a model of human rights into the design or amendment of their national patent law. This thesis also contributes to the ongoing debate in the field of business and human rights with regard to the mechanisms that can be used to hold corporate actors accountable for their human rights responsibilities. This thesis recognizes that, while states bear the primary responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to health, corporate actors such as pharmaceutical companies also have a baseline responsibility to respect the right to health. This thesis therefore contends that pharmaceutical companies that own patent rights on pharmaceutical products can be held accountable for their right to health responsibilities at the national level through the incorporation of a model of civic participation into a country’s patent law system.

EU-India free trade negotiations threatening access to medicines

Indian firms are major global producers of relatively affordable generic medicines. Access to such drugs makes the difference between life and death for billions of people in the Global South. The Economist noted recently that ‘America should not use trade deals to swaddle drugmakers in excessive patent protections’. Nor should the European Union (EU) impose obstacles to the supply of generic drugs by Indian firms beyond those already mandated by the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. Free trade negotiations between the EU (reported to be close to completion) constitute a clear threat to the role of India as the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’.

The politics of the pharmaceutical industry and access to medicines : world pharmacy and India

The Pharmaceutical Industry presents one of India’s most successful stories of economic expansion and improvements in public health. Indian firms have made access to quality medicines possible and affordable in many developing countries. Indian pharmaceuticals are also exported on a large scale to the United States and other highly regulated markets. A wave of mergers, acquisitions and tie-ups point to growing integration between Indian firms and global pharma multinationals.

The Politics of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Access to Medicines: World Pharmacy and India examines this important industry from different economic, social and political perspectives. Topics covered include the implications of TRIPS-compliant intellectual property rights, the role of flexibilities under TRIPS, the market regulation system, the role of Indian firms in exporting HIV/AIDS medications to Africa, the issue of free trade agreements, the power and reach of foreign pharmaceutical multinationals in India’s domestic market, and the sustainability of India as a major generics supplier.

The Pharmaceutical Industry and Access to Medicines in India

Pharmaceutical policy in India as elsewhere is shaped by conflicting economic and social interests and opposing values and priorities. Tensions can be understood as revolving around the contradiction between use value and exchange value in the production of medicinal drugs as commodities, as per Marx’s original analysis. The use value of medicines – if safe and efficacious, of good quality, and prescribed and consumed appropriately – is the prevention, cure or alleviation of ill-health and disease. Health policy is – or should be – aimed at optimising the use value of medicines. For this purpose government agencies administer regulatory oversight of the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of medicines. Drugs made available to patients are expected to meet adequate safety, quality and efficacy standards, but regulation to ensure such standards is subject to controversy in most countries. This is a domain where definition and interpretation of scientific-technological principles and criteria is infused by partiality and bias grounded in social and material interests, as evidenced by recurrent debates about industry ‘capture’ of regulatory agencies, including the world’s most regulator, the US Food and Drug Administration (Angell 2005; Law 2006). In India, a Parliamentary Committee Report in 2012 depicted the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) as dysfunctional and influenced inappropriately by the exchange value perspective of manufacturers (Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Welfare 2012). The clash between use and exchange value perspectives is starkly illustrated by cases of products known to cause more harm than good, particularly common in poorly regulated markets such as India’s, as shown by Srinivasan & Phadke.

The pharmaceutical industry, intellectual property rights and access to medicines in Pakistan

The pharmaceutical industry in Pakistan is worth around US$ l.18 billion, with annual growth in 2010 approaching 10 per cent (Khan, 2012). There are more than 650 registered companies, including 31 multinationals, which in 2006 had a market share in value terms of 53.3 per cent, with national firms controlling the remaining 46.7 per cent (IMS Health, 2007). In 2007 medicines worth about US$100 million were exported. Medicines are a vital component of healthcare, and Pakistan spends around three-quarters of its healthcare budget on medicines (WHO, 2004). This chapter provides an overview, from a public health perspective, of the national pharmaceutical market and the development of drug policies and regulation. Pakistan adopted a Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) compliant patent regime in 2000, and the intersection between patents and public health is a central policy challenge. This chapter highlights key issues related to intellectual property, Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), and production and access to medicines.

Comparison of access to medicines between Klang Valley and East Coast of peninsular Malaysia for children living in poor households

Purpose: To compare access to medicines in children living in poor households (income of USD1/person/day) between urbanised Klang Valley and rural East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Methods: A semi-structured interview was conducted with caregivers to determine demographics, access to medicines, knowledge, attitude and practice of parents in obtaining medicines for children. Results: There was no significant difference socio-demographically between poor households in Klang Valley (N = 58) and East Coast (N = 40). The study found that access to medicine for children (N = 325) in the households was adequate, where all households that reported illness in the children over the last 1 month and the last 6 month periods, obtained medicines and 99 % of the children were fully immunized. Qualitative analysis showed that poor households face several barriers in accessing medicines for their children such as financial, transportation, physical and attitudinal. Conclusion: Access to medicines for children living in poor households in both areas were similar and adequate. However, barriers to access remain and further studies are required.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Access to medicine and the dangers of patent linkage : lessons from Bayer Corp v. Union of India

In February 2010, the Delhi High Court delivered its decision in Bayer Corp v Union of India in which Bayer had appealed against an August 2009 decision of the same court. Both decisions prevented Bayer from introducing the concept of patent linkage into India’s drug regulatory regime. Bayer appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, the highest court in India, which agreed on 2 March 2010 to hear the appeal. Given that India is regarded as a global pharmaceutical manufacturer of generic medications, how its judiciary and government perceive their international obligations has a significant impact on the global access to medicines regime. In rejecting the application of patent linkage, the case provides an opportunity for India to further acknowledge its international human rights obligations.

Incentives for global public health: Patent law and access to essential medicines

This portrait of the global debate over patent law and access to essential medicines focuses on public health concerns about HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, the SARS virus, influenza, and diseases of poverty. The essays explore the diplomatic negotiations and disputes in key international fora, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Drawing upon international trade law, innovation policy, intellectual property law, health law, human rights and philosophy, the authors seek to canvass policy solutions which encourage and reward worthwhile pharmaceutical innovation while ensuring affordable access to advanced medicines. A number of creative policy options are critically assessed, including the development of a Health Impact Fund, prizes for medical innovation, the use of patent pools, open-source drug development and forms of 'creative capitalism'.

The race to patent the SARS virus: The TRIPS agreement and access to essential medicines

This article considers the race to sequence the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome virus ('the SARS virus') in light of the debate over patent law and access to essential medicines. Part II evaluates the claims of public research institutions in Canada, the United States, and Hong Kong, and commercial companies, to patent rights in respect of the SARS virus. It highlights the dilemma of ’defensive patenting' - the tension between securing private patent rights and facilitating public disclosure of information and research. Part III considers the race to patent the SARS virus in light of wider policy debates over gene patents. It examines the application of such patent criteria as novelty, inventive step, utility, and secret use. It contends that there is a need to reform the patent system to accommodate the global nature of scientific inquiry, the unique nature of genetics, and the pace of technological change. Part IV examines the role played by the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization in dealing with patent law and access to essential medicines. The article contends that there is a need to ensure that the patent system is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to accommodate international research efforts on infectious diseases.

Intellectual property rights and the campaign for access to essential medicines : the advocacy role assumed by Médecins Sans Frontières

Non-governmental organizations and transnational networks have been increasingly successful a t gaining influence within issue areas traditionally controlled by the state. In many instances, non-state actors have been instrumental in forcing issues onto the global agenda, have aided in the development or transformation of global regimes, and have participated in securing state compliance for the adoption of new international norms. This paper argues that, consistent with social constructivist theory, ideas are important in influencing state preferences and change may be possible when certain factors are present. I f non-state actors can influence states, it is meaningful to understand how this happens. This paper focuses on a campaign led by Medecins Sans Frontieres that began in the late 1990s to acquire affordable medicines for patients in developing states that could not afford patented drugs. The campaign reached a measure of success in that member states of the World Trade Organization re-negotiated contested terms and meanings within the trade agreement for intellectual property rights and allowed concessions that would benefit lower income states. What factors contributed to the success of the campaign? And what were the most important factors - the issue, the actors or the mechanisms used?