Another Boost For Generics: Brazilian Judge Annuls Patent On Key AIDS Drug
from the keep-taking-the-medicine dept
Last week Techdirt reported on an important decision in India to allow the production of a generic version of a kidney and liver cancer drug, with huge savings for the Indian health system, and major effects in terms of lives likely to be saved. Now Intellectual Property Watch has news of a court case in Brazil that could have equally important consequences for the local use of generics:
Word is spreading of a recent decision by a Brazilian judge to annul a patent on a key AIDS drug, effectively allowing less expensive generic versions into the country, and calling into question other such patents.
Here's why the case is setting a precedent:
A leading feature of the case is that the patent was granted under the "pipeline" process, which allowed "revalidation" of patents granted in other countries while Brazil was modifying its patent law for certain new areas including pharmaceuticals.
The "pipeline" process refers to a mechanism for granting patents in technological fields that had earlier been excluded under Brazilian law, using the date of the first filing for patents elsewhere. This allowed companies to extend the reach of patent monopolies already obtained outside Brazil without needing to go through that country's patent application process.
The judge in this case ruled that the pipeline process was unconstitutional, according to sources.
Lack of constitutionality had been raised back in 2008 because of the way that pipeline patents diminished the public domain:
"The concession of pipeline patents also violates the acquired right of the collectivity by removing from the public domain knowledge belonging to everyone, which once again goes against society’s interest," said Renata Reis, an attorney at the non-governmental Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Organization.
Among the drugs that were removed from the public domain by the pipeline process is the ritonavir/lopinavir combination, the subject of the judge's order annulling Abbott Laboratories' patent. Not surprisingly, the company has said that it will appeal the decision. But if the ruling is upheld it may lead to other patents granted to drugs through the pipeline process being invalidated too.
Taken together with the Indian decision, this latest ruling emphasizes the increasingly important role of generics in global healthcare. That's another reason why both ACTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement are problematic.
ACTA, for example, allows generics to be seized in transit on the basis of complaints about names that are "confusingly similar" to a brand-name drug. TPP, meanwhile, would bring in a range of measures to make it substantially harder for companies to produce generic versions of patented drugs in signatory nations. The divergence between what the BRICS countries are doing in this area, and what plurilateral treaties like ACTA and TPP seek to mandate, is another reason why it is unlikely the former will ever sign up to the latter.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: access to medicines, aids, brazil, generics, healthcare, patents, pipeline
Companies: abbott labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is the problem we all have to deal with and it sucks..
The corporations patent shit just to say were the only one that can help people! Who cares if a generic is cheaper especially when it's a drug that can actually decide how many more years you're going to live.
I hope these scumbags get dealt with soon it's technically genocide. They deserve death and nothing less for the countless lives they took. If there was a generic around at a fraction of the cost I'm sure there would be a lot of families that would not have been torn apart just because they're poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's that...did you hear that? Why, I do believe that is the Law of Unintended Consequences clearing its throat.
Shhh....everybody quiet. I think it's about to say something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, the public domain would be effectively empty if the drug companies and researchers were not working on it. The pipeline process was made so that things like drugs could come to market without the patent holder risking unfair competition from generic makers in the country, pending their patent system getting these areas resolved.
Now they have effectively given then Pharma companies a pig in a poke, they have entered the market, made their drugs available, the drugs have become common use, and now any generic company that wants will be able to bang them out without having to pay for the research or development.
Seems more than a little unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All you need is to control the temperature basically inside a tank adding some filters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is that so? That might actually make for another IP-litigation opportunity. "You can't use this vaccine because the developer didn't pay his virus licence!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe, just maybe, your eyes will open and you will understand. You might have to push Mike's ass out of the way to see, but you can do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like grounds for repealing the Statute of Anne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a Clue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get Your Priorities Straight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get Your Priorities Straight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Your Priorities Straight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Your Priorities Straight
I say bring it. Let the research go back to universities where it belongs and to people with a genuine interest in benefiting mankind instead of their patent portfolio.
I'm more afraid of Howie Mandel dragging me under my bed that I am of the lack of patents killing innovation. I've seen enough examples to know a fairy tale when I see one, and the whole "without_________(fill in your favorite IP) there will be no___________(fill in your favorite parasitic industry)" is a fairy tale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a Clue
Please do at least read before you spew. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I garantee you that if you end drug patents or take patents away from the pharma industry you WILL see a far fewer companies willing to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to develop, test, and approve groundbreaking treatments for diseases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For future reference: putting the words 'I garantee[sic]' below the name 'Anonymous Coward' is at best humorous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were "Big Pharma"
Kaletra / Aluvia cost Abbott Labs a small fortune to develop and get approved. And what if, at the last minute, a snag developed and approval could not be granted? All that money would have been gone, and that happens all of the time with medications which seem promising but never come to market.
If you take away the profit incentive to take these risks, then fewer risks will be taken and fewer new drugs will be developed. When the new-drug pipeline dries up, people will die.
The case of Kaletra / Aluvia is even more disturbing. When Abbott developed original formulation of ritonavir / lopinavir, it worked just fine. But other countries, such as INDIA, BRAZIL, and African nations went back to Abbott and said "we need a version that doesn't have to be refrigerated, that requires fewer pills a day, and can be taken without regard to meals." ABBOTT DID THIS FOR THEM. Spent more zillions of dollars creating this new formulation. Even produced a lower-cost version (Aluvia) for these developing nations. And now they want to take this thing that Abbott created and sell it as a generic.
Abbott Lab's CEO is on record as being committed to the developing world. He's a better man than I. I would probably get out of the business of developing life-saving drugs and go to the beach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
That said, Abbot at least used state of the art equipment provided by the United State Department of Energy at the Argonne National Laboratory - a direct contribution from taxpayers.
http://www.physorg.com/news76606766.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
You mean like those companies actually do right now, only investing in things they already know are going to work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
Which is why folks like you can get jobs as IP lawyers, and folks like him can do research.
Pro Tip: Not everyone in the world has the same motives as you ($$).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
I'm glad that for-profit drug companies have given me tools to improve and save lives. If they were to stop doing so, people would suffer.
Pro Tip: don't pick my motives based on your preconceived notions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I were "Big Pharma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When humanity is wiped out by a virulent plague that could have been stopped with a drug that nobody could afford, the pharmaceutical executives will be smugly counting their beans and congratulating themselves.
Oh sorry, that was melodramatic, wasn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being wiped out by a virulent plague...
Or, we could create the new job classification of Telephone Sanitizer, and be safe from virulent plagues that manage to evade all that expensive research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]