natco vs bayer case-final

1

Presented by:Alak Roy (CSP12001)

Helal Uddin Mullah (ELP15103)Airy Sanjeev (MBP15104)

Happy Borgohain (PHP15105)Mrigyanka Chakravarty (MBP15101)

Intellectual Property Rights Cell, Tezpur UniversityNovember, 2015

Compulsory Licensing: A case study of

Natco vs. Bayer

2

IPR Cell, Tezpur University

OUTLINE Introduction

Compulsory License : IntroductionVoluntary vs. Compulsory LicenseLegal Provisions of Compulsory License Compulsory licensing under Indian National Legislation

Case of NATCO Vs BAYERNATCO v/s BAYER: Case IntroductionTimeline of the CaseConsiderations for granting the compulsory licenseVerdict of the case

Effects and consequences Solutions for the future References

3 Compulsory License : Introduction

Protection of intellectual property rights using IPR tools does not allow the complete privatization of research works, knowledge generation, and inventions.

We need mechanisms that protect intellectual property and, at the same time, address the needs of the poor.

The provision of compulsory license (CL) enables the government to balance the rights of the patent holder with its obligations to ensure working of patents, availability of the products at a reasonable price, promotion and dissemination of technological invention and protection of public health and nutrition.


Voluntary vs. Compulsory License

Voluntary License: Granted by innovator company to multiple generic companies. Helps innovator reach newer markets and focus on their core R&D. Helps generics to generate revenue. Facilitates affordable priced drugs supply to public.

Compulsory License: Granted to remedy non-affordable drug prices, national emergency,

health crisis of public or for govt. use. A royalty is paid by the compulsory licensee to the patent holder Respective govt. has the right to determine the grounds for granting

compulsory license.

5 Legal Provisions of Compulsory LicenseUnder the Paris Convention (1883):

• envisaged provisions for each contracting State to take legislative measures for granting compulsory licenses .

• According to Article 5A (2) of the Paris Convention – “Each country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures

providing for the grant of compulsory license to prevent the abuses that might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent.”

Under TRIPS (1995): • Compulsory licensing is covered in the TRIPS Agreement by:

1. Article 30, which provides limited exceptions to the rights conferred under patents, provided they do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of third parties. This article provides the basis for issuing compulsory licenses;

2. Article 31, which refers to compulsory licensing as other use without authorization of the rights holder, but allows countries to do so only under certain conditions . IPR Cell, Tezpur University

6

Under Indian National Legislation: Chapter XVI (Section 82-98) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 (amended in

2005)

Section 84(1):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:

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.IPR Cell, Tezpur University

Legal Provisions of Compulsory License

7

Under Indian National Legislation: Sections 92 — Special provision for compulsory Licenses on

notifications by central government.

Sections 92 (3) —Circumstances of national emergency or extreme urgency, a case of public non-commercial use

Section 92 A—For exports of patented pharmaceutical products in certain exceptional circumstances. eg: to foreign countries with public health problems.


Legal Provisions of Compulsory License

8

Section 84 (6):- In considering the application field for CL, the Controller takes account of the followings-

the nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patentee or any licensee to make full use of the invention;

the ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

the capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application were granted;

as to whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions.


Provisions of Compulsory License

NATCO v/s BAYER: Case Introduction• First case of compulsory licensing being obtained in India • in pharmaceutical field of discipline in 2012.

• The players of this case are: Patentee: Bayer Corp. Applicant: NATCO Drug:

NEXAVAR

IPR Cell, Tezpur University9

9

• Bayer Corporations: an innovative drug multinational giant based at Germany. 1990: Invented a drug named `SORAFENIB’

For cancer patients Scientific name: Carboxy substituted diphenyl ureas

It’s not a life saving drug but only an extending one (stage IV); It extends life

by 4-5 years among kidney cancer patients and by 6-8 months among liver cancer patients.

• NATCO Pharma Ltd: Hyderabad-based leading manufacturer and distributor of drugs in

India. Applied for CL to produce

a generic version of Bayer’s patented medicine Nexavar in 2011.IPR Cell, Tezpur University

10

NATCO v/s BAYER: Case Introduction10

11Timeline of the

Case• 1990: Bayer Corp. Invented a drug named `SORAFENIB’• 1999: Bayer had originally applied for the patent in the United

States • 2000: Bayer filed a PCT International Application.• 2005: Bayer launched the drug, with brand name Nexavar.

• 2008 (March): For Bayer, patent was granted in india for the drug• Started importing and selling Nexavar in India.• A month’s dosage of the drug = US$ 5,608.4 (approx. Rs. 2.80

Lakh).IPR Cell, Tezpur University

12• Natco had approached Bayer for a voluntary license• to produce and sell the drug (in accordance with the Indian Patent Act,

1970)• Citing the high rates being charged by Bayer,• Natco proposed to sell the drug at a price lower than US$ 200 (appx

Rs.8,800)

• Request was denied by Bayer

• 2010: M/S Cipla, another drug manufacturer, starts selling a generic version of Nexavar.


Timeline of the Case


13• 2011 (July): Natco applied for a compulsory license to the Controller of

Patents• to manufacture and sell a generic version of Nexavar.• under Section 84(1) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 (amended in 2005) .

• 2012 (March): First compulsory license granted in india• permitting Natco to produce and sell a generic version of Nexavar.

• Bayer appealed against the Controller’s decision• to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) • in the Bombay High court with the contention that• the order weakens the international patent system and endangers

research.


14 2013 (March): The Controller’s decision was upheld by IPAB and an order was

passed to that effect.

Compulsory license had been granted on the following grounds:(a) Bayer had failed to fulfill reasonable requirements of the public with regard to the patented invention;

(b) Nexavar was not available to the general public at a reasonably affordable price; and

(c) Bayer had not worked the patented invention in the territory of India.



15Considerations for granting the compulsory

licenseIssue (a): Bayer failed to fulfill the reasonable requirements of the public with regard to the drug.

According to GLOBOCAN 2008(World Health Organization, 2008): India has some 20,000 liver cancer patients and 8,900 kidney cancer

patients. Bayer estimated: only about 8,900 people were eligible for a stage IV

drug such as Nexavar. Bayer sold only 593 boxes in 2011.

The Controller estimated that: if, on average, each cancer patient required three packets (three

months’ dosage) of medicines, Bayer’s 593 boxes would have supplied the needs of less than 200

patients. With Bayer’s modest estimation of 8,900 patients: able to cater to only

about 2% of the patientsIPR Cell, Tezpur University

16Considerations for granting the compulsory

licenseIssue (a): Bayer failed to fulfill the reasonable requirements of the public with regard to the drug.

Possibility that Bayer did not have sufficient time to make the drug available was also rejected.

Bayer, a well-known brand name in India, had been marketing the drug globally since 2006, but

Bayer, made little effort to sell the drug in India since its introduction in the country in 2008.

Evident from Bayer’s figures for sales of the drug in India: India’s sales of the drug accounted for not more than 1.6% of the

drug’s total sales worldwide in the previous three years (prior 2011), as estimated by Natco.


17

Issue (b): Nexavar was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price.

Drug price of US$ 5,608 per month: Not reasonably affordable price Large chunk of the population have access to only private health care systems Annual per capita income was only about US$ 1,489 in 2012 (World Bank

2013)

Bayer justification: Charging US$ 5,608 for the drug on the basis of the huge R&D costs

involved in development. Requires approx. US $2 billion to bring any new molecule to the market. Submitted evidence: comparable drugs were priced similarly to Nexavar. Failed versions prepared before actual drug invented: accounted 75%

of total R&D costs


Considerations for granting the compulsory license

18

Issue (b): Nexavar was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price.

Natco countered Bayer’s claim that R&D costs should be used as a criterion for fixing the price of the drug;

Patent Controller was also of the view that Reasonably affordable price should be seen from the public’s

perspective rather than the patentee’s .

Natco also argued that Price of product should not be fixed on the grounds that the entire R&D

costs for the drug had to be collected from the Indian market. IPR Cell, Tezpur University


19

Issue (c): Bayer had not worked its drug, Nexavar in the territory of India .

The concern arose from the fact that the term “worked in the territory of India” had not been explicitly defined in the Indian Patent Act.

Though India amended its Patent act, didn’t go accordingly with the TRIPS in this case.

Bayer defended its claim to the patent by interpreting the phrase to mean ensuring an adequate supply to the Indian market.

Both Natco and the Patent Controller were of the view that working precluded importation of the drug, and that the drug had to be locally manufactured for it to fulfill this criterion.IPR Cell, Tezpur University


TRIPS Indian Patent ActAccording to article-27(1), there is no compulsion on patentee for local working to enjoy its right in the territory.

There is non-discrimination between importation and local production.

India amended its sec-83(a) and (b) stating that, “the patentee shall be working in India and patent can not be granted for merely importing the product.

20

Issue (c): Bayer had not worked its drug, Nexavar in the territory of India .

IPAB ruled that Bayer had not proved working its patent in Indian territory as it had not provided any evidence as to why Nexavar could not be

locally manufactured, and why it had to rely solely on imports of the drug for supplying the Indian

market. Bayer already had manufacturing facilities in India for several

products, including oncology medications, as pointed out by Natco.

Moreover, the fact remained that even if Bayer’s imports were taken into account, they were nowhere near the commercial scale required to satisfy the requirements of the public in India.



21VERDICT OF THE CASE

Bayer had disputed the Government's decision to grant a CL by ordering Natco to sell the cancer drug at Rs.8,800 for a month's therapy and pay 6% royalty to Bayer on total sales.

In 3 years (2008-2011): No steps taken by Bayer to revise the marketing strategy and cut the price of the product.

IPAB directed Natco to increase the royalty to 7%. Natco has very limited rights to manufacture and commercially sell

the drug .

22VERDICT OF THE CASE

Natco cannot sublicense to another party. It is a non-assignable and non-exclusive license with no right to

import the drug. The CL drug can be sold only for the treatment of liver and renal

cancer. Natco cannot use this license for alternate or subsequent use of the drug.

Natco, as committed before, has to provide the drug free of cost to at least 600 “needy and deserving” patients per year.

Natco cannot or it has no right to “represent privately or publicly” that the product manufactured by it is the same as Bayer’s Nexavar.

23EFFECTS /CONSEQUENCES

In light of the IPAB ruling, the Government will grant more CLs. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion is already considering the grant

of CLs for three more anti-cancer drugs. (Herceptin, Ixempra and Sprycel) Price will fall as more generic version become available. Analysts say that the rulings are likely to strain the relationship between Indian firms

and their global counterparts operating in the Rs.72,000 crore Indian drug market. India's image as an investment hub could, however, suffer in the

aftermath of the rulings. Innovator companies will not feel secure investing in a country where

their extensively researched products could be subject to CLs. Bayer says the cost of inventing and developing a new medical entity like Nexavar

is about Rs.11,775 crore . More legal battle will come up.


24 SOLUTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The way out for the Government is to evolve a price mechanism wherein drugs made by MNCs are sold alongside those made by Indian companies at

different prices. Can possibly put an end to the price war.

The solution is either a cross-subsidy model where Rich pay the full price and the poor pay a subsidised price or Government buys for the poor and supplies through government hospitals, But such a policy will distract from the grant of CLs and, in turn,

delay the entry of low-cost generic versions.


25 References1. Gautam, Savita, and Meghna Dasgupta. Compulsory licensing: India's maiden experience. No. 137.

ARTNeT Working Paper Series, 2013.

2. Chaudhuri, S.(2012). ―Multinationals and monopolies: Pharmaceutical industry in India after TRIPS‖, Economic and Political Weekly,vol.47, No. 12.

3. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (2010). ―Compulsory licensing, Discussion Paper. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi. Available at dipp.nic.in (accessed 2 August 2013).

4. Abbott, F. M. and R. V. Puymbroeck (2005). Compulsory Licensing for Public Health. World Bank, Washington D.C

5. Banerji, S., and A. Sengupta (2011). ―The effect of the Indian Patents (2005) amendment on the pharmaceutical industry and access to medicines in India. INJIIPLaw 7; 4 Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, vol.103.

6. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/estoppel

7. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/healthdeclexpln_e.htm

8. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm2_e.htmIPR Cell, Tezpur University

26


Engineering

natco vs bayer case-final