Foreign drug firms killing RP patients softly
Foreign drug firms killing RP patients softly
Updated 01:05am (Mla time) Oct 08, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 8, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE GOVERNMENT has finally accepted the fact that in the Philippines, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. In fact, hunger already stalks the land. So the government will start giving out food coupons to the poor, and there are already lugaw lines at the Quiapo church, the counterpart of the bread lines during the American Depression.
That probably takes care of the food problem, at least in its very limited scope. But what about the "medicine problem," which is oftentimes more desperate and life-threatening than the "food problem"? The prices of medicines are so high that many patients die needlessly because they cannot afford to buy them.
The government has tried to alleviate the problem by passing the "Generic Drugs Law" which requires doctors to write the generic names, instead of the brand names, of the drugs they prescribe so that their patients can choose the cheapest available. And the Department of Trade is importing limited quantities of medicine from India that manufactures them cheaply.
But the results of these efforts are like a drop in the bucket in the supply of medicines consumed by sick Filipinos daily. Only a few drugs have generic, inexpensive equivalents here. And the drugs from India are very limited, both in quantity and in the diseases that they cure.
Four multinational pharmaceutical companies control almost 80 percent of the Philippine market. Filipino companies, of which Unilab is the biggest, have only a 20 percent share. As in our downstream oil industry, the foreigners have monopolistic control of the Filipino consuming public, so that they can dictate any price they want. That is why the prices of branded medicines are beyond the reach of the poor and often even of the middle class.
Not only that, they use unwarranted patent exploitation at the expense of Filipino patients. One case in point concerns a drug that affects millions of hypertensive patients who have to take blood pressure-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives.
In 1987, the multinational pharmaceutical company, Dupont, filed an application for a patent for its anti-hypertensive drug (generic name: Losartan; brand name: Cozaar). After abandoning the application for more than 13 years, it now wants to revive the application. Obviously, Dupont wants to continue the monopoly of the product and consequently retain its exorbitant pricing and profits.
The anti-hypertensive market is a P7.3 billion market, of which P201 million goes to Losartan. Dupont's Cozaar monopolized the Losartan market until June 2004 when a local pharmaceutical company introduced a competing product.
The retail price of the 50 mg Cozaar is P39; the Philippine product is P20.20, or a difference of P18.80. The 100 mg Cozaar retails for P55, the competing brand for only P26, or a difference of P28. With that big difference in prices, Cozaar will naturally lose a sizable chunk of the market and Dupont wants to prevent that by trying to revive its patent application that the old Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) had already declared as abandoned way back on Sept. 20, 1988.
There is another probable reason why the foreign company wants to revive the application now. During those 13 years, it was operating as if it already had a patent since it had a monopoly of the Losartan market. But now there is a competitor, so it wants protection.
The life of a patent under the present Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines is 20 years from the date of filing of the application. The patent application Dupont is pursuing was filed in 1987 when the applicable law was RA 165 which provides that the term of patent shall begin on the date the patent was issued and expire 17 years later.
If it gets the patent only this year, it would therefore continue to have a monopoly for another 17 years--after already enjoying such a monopoly for the last 13 years. That has the effect of extending patent protection for 30 years!
Cozaar was issued US patents in 1992 and 1994. It is absurd that a product that has been in the market that long should still be given patent protection.
Dupont alleged in its petition for revival of the abandoned patent application that the Notice of Abandonment sent by the BPTTT did not reach its office in 1988 and that its lawyer never notified it of the abandonment. BPTTT rules allow a petition for revival to be filed within four months from abandonment. Dupont filed its petition after 13 years.
The BPTTT and IPO affirmed the denial on the grounds that Dupont is bound by the mistake or negligence of its former counsel and that the period for filing a petition for revival had long lapsed.
Dupont filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the period for revival prescribed in the BPTTT's rules on patent is mandatory and that Dupont is bound by the negligence of its counsel.
But in its decision, the CA said that despite the lapse of 16 years, there is sufficient justification to relax the application of the doctrine that a party is bound by the mistake of its counsel. This decision contradicts the ruling of the Supreme Court in Schuartz vs. Court of Appeals where it held that "where an unreasonable period of time had lapsed prior to the filing of a petition for revival of a patent application due to negligence of the applicant's counsel, such action would result in the forfeiture of the right to revive the patent application."
The OSG has filed a motion for reconsideration.
Updated 01:05am (Mla time) Oct 08, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 8, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE GOVERNMENT has finally accepted the fact that in the Philippines, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. In fact, hunger already stalks the land. So the government will start giving out food coupons to the poor, and there are already lugaw lines at the Quiapo church, the counterpart of the bread lines during the American Depression.
That probably takes care of the food problem, at least in its very limited scope. But what about the "medicine problem," which is oftentimes more desperate and life-threatening than the "food problem"? The prices of medicines are so high that many patients die needlessly because they cannot afford to buy them.
The government has tried to alleviate the problem by passing the "Generic Drugs Law" which requires doctors to write the generic names, instead of the brand names, of the drugs they prescribe so that their patients can choose the cheapest available. And the Department of Trade is importing limited quantities of medicine from India that manufactures them cheaply.
But the results of these efforts are like a drop in the bucket in the supply of medicines consumed by sick Filipinos daily. Only a few drugs have generic, inexpensive equivalents here. And the drugs from India are very limited, both in quantity and in the diseases that they cure.
Four multinational pharmaceutical companies control almost 80 percent of the Philippine market. Filipino companies, of which Unilab is the biggest, have only a 20 percent share. As in our downstream oil industry, the foreigners have monopolistic control of the Filipino consuming public, so that they can dictate any price they want. That is why the prices of branded medicines are beyond the reach of the poor and often even of the middle class.
Not only that, they use unwarranted patent exploitation at the expense of Filipino patients. One case in point concerns a drug that affects millions of hypertensive patients who have to take blood pressure-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives.
In 1987, the multinational pharmaceutical company, Dupont, filed an application for a patent for its anti-hypertensive drug (generic name: Losartan; brand name: Cozaar). After abandoning the application for more than 13 years, it now wants to revive the application. Obviously, Dupont wants to continue the monopoly of the product and consequently retain its exorbitant pricing and profits.
The anti-hypertensive market is a P7.3 billion market, of which P201 million goes to Losartan. Dupont's Cozaar monopolized the Losartan market until June 2004 when a local pharmaceutical company introduced a competing product.
The retail price of the 50 mg Cozaar is P39; the Philippine product is P20.20, or a difference of P18.80. The 100 mg Cozaar retails for P55, the competing brand for only P26, or a difference of P28. With that big difference in prices, Cozaar will naturally lose a sizable chunk of the market and Dupont wants to prevent that by trying to revive its patent application that the old Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) had already declared as abandoned way back on Sept. 20, 1988.
There is another probable reason why the foreign company wants to revive the application now. During those 13 years, it was operating as if it already had a patent since it had a monopoly of the Losartan market. But now there is a competitor, so it wants protection.
The life of a patent under the present Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines is 20 years from the date of filing of the application. The patent application Dupont is pursuing was filed in 1987 when the applicable law was RA 165 which provides that the term of patent shall begin on the date the patent was issued and expire 17 years later.
If it gets the patent only this year, it would therefore continue to have a monopoly for another 17 years--after already enjoying such a monopoly for the last 13 years. That has the effect of extending patent protection for 30 years!
Cozaar was issued US patents in 1992 and 1994. It is absurd that a product that has been in the market that long should still be given patent protection.
Dupont alleged in its petition for revival of the abandoned patent application that the Notice of Abandonment sent by the BPTTT did not reach its office in 1988 and that its lawyer never notified it of the abandonment. BPTTT rules allow a petition for revival to be filed within four months from abandonment. Dupont filed its petition after 13 years.
The BPTTT and IPO affirmed the denial on the grounds that Dupont is bound by the mistake or negligence of its former counsel and that the period for filing a petition for revival had long lapsed.
Dupont filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the period for revival prescribed in the BPTTT's rules on patent is mandatory and that Dupont is bound by the negligence of its counsel.
But in its decision, the CA said that despite the lapse of 16 years, there is sufficient justification to relax the application of the doctrine that a party is bound by the mistake of its counsel. This decision contradicts the ruling of the Supreme Court in Schuartz vs. Court of Appeals where it held that "where an unreasonable period of time had lapsed prior to the filing of a petition for revival of a patent application due to negligence of the applicant's counsel, such action would result in the forfeiture of the right to revive the patent application."
The OSG has filed a motion for reconsideration.
posted by Dante at 2:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home