[Ip-health] Medicines Patent Pool agreement with Gilead contains flexibilities including termination provisions and severability of licenses

Krista Cox krista.cox at keionline.org
Tue Jul 26 10:43:46 PDT 2011


http://keionline.org/node/1192
<http://keionline.org/node/1192>
Medicines Patent Pool agreement with Gilead contains flexibilities including
termination provisions and severability of licenses
By Krista Cox
Created 25 Jul 2011 - 2:38pm

On 12 July 2011, the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) and Gilead announced an
agreement for Gilead to license patents for tenofovir (TDF), emtricitabine
(FTC), elvitegravir (EVG), cobisistat (COBI) and a four drug combination of
these drugs. KEI's initial comments on the agreement are available here [1].
Although there is plenty of room for improvement in the licensing agreement
and future agreements should build upon the Gilead licenses, as noted by the
Patent Pool staff, KEI, and virtually all NGOs working closely on this
issue, some recent criticisms of the MPP seem off the mark in important
areas and also fail to recognize or emphasize the important flexibilities
that are contained within the agreement. Taken together, this can give an
unbalanced and in some cases misleading light view of the licensing terms.

This note focuses in particular on the ITPC and I-MAK's briefing paper, The
Implications of the Medicines Patent Pool and Gilead Licenses on Access to
Treatment [2]. For brevity, this will be referred to as the I-MAK analysis.

I-MAK says that the MPP/Gilead agreement "has accepted new uses of these
known products" and claims that this "effectively validated new use patents
for all other companies that might enter the pool." Let's break that down.

First, the Gilead/Medicines Patent Pool Agreement covers several products
and combinations of those products. However, generic drug manfacturers can
choose to terminate the licenses for particular products, while using
licenses for others. Thus, this is an a la carte licensing mode, with regard
to products. In other words, a company can decide to license COBI and EVG,
but not license TDF. In fact, it is a likely outcome for some companies.

Second, the license is a right to use the patents listed in the Appendices
to the license in a field of use. The field of use is set out in page 2 of
the license in the definitions section. For products using TDF as a sole
ingredient, the field of use is HIV and Hepatitis B. For EVG and COBI, the
field of use includes "any use that is consistent with" the labels approved
by the US FDA or other "applicable foreign regulatory authority."

This definition is the basis for the I-MAK complaint. However, this language
should be seen as a positive, not a negative. The license holder will have a
right to use the licensed products for a wide range of uses. Additionally,
at any point, the license holder can terminate the licenses to these
products, if it feels that the important patents have expired and would
prefer to operate outside of the license of any new uses of the products.
Nothing in the license stops any party from challenging any patent, or from
obtaining compulsory licenses to any patent, or from licensing some products
but not others. I-MAK should explain why giving the generic drug companies
this flexibility is a negative, rather than a positive.

The MPP/Gilead agreement termination clauses are found in Section 10 of the
license, and are designed so that the licenses are not bundled together but,
rather, are severable. Sections 10.4 and 10.5 of the agreement, for example,
govern the Licensee's right to terminate the agreement. The Licensee has the
right "at its sole discretion, to terminate the licenses . . . with respect
to any particular API, at any time" with the termination effective
immediately upon receipt of written notice by Gilead and MPP (Article 10.5).
The Licensee can terminate its license for a particular product while
maintaining its licenses for other products covered by the agreement;
nothing in the MPP/Gilead agreement limits the Licensee's ability to produce
and sell any API that it retains a license for (Section 10.5(c)).

The ITPC/I-MAK paper claims that the MPP/Gilead license introduces a "global
patent system" because of the agreement provides for royalties on TDF to be
paid to Gilead and points out that the royalty rate will increase from 3% to
5% of net sales should the TDF patents eventually be granted in India. I-MAK
says:

"the license allows Gilead to receive royalties on a drug until every
possible legal avenue is exhausted, and the highest legal authority has
rejected the patent. To illustrate, in India, despite the fact that there is
no TDF patent, Gilead will receive royalties while the case is heard by the
Appeals Board, High Court, and Supreme Court -- a process that could take
some years."

Much of the criticism with regard to the MPP/Gilead agreement centers around
TDF and its patent status in other countries, particularly India. I-MAK goes
on to argue that because of the current TDF patent status in India, Gilead
will continue to litigate against the refusal of its TDF patent in India
which will result in Licensees having to pay royalties "and by that effect,
Gilead will have achieved the objective of extracting a rent from a right it
did not have. It also means that Gilead has managed to circumvent the very
flexibilities India implemented in its Patent Laws to address patent quality
issues."

We can appreciate that I-MAK wants Gilead to abandon its patent claims for
TDF in India, and surely this view is widely held within the public health
community. That said, much of this criticism of the licsense seems
unwarranted in practice. As noted above, the MPP/Gilead agreement makes the
licenses severable, meaning that a Licensee does not have to sign a license
for TDF in order to sign licenses for FTC, EVG or COBI. The severability of
the licenses is a significant aspect of the agreement, and generic
manufacturers, like CIPLA, do not have to agree to sign a license for TDF.
Given the severability of the licenses, and based upon discussions with
generic drug manufacturers from India, it is seems unlikely that all
Licensees will automatically agree to sign a license for TDF and pay
royalties on the product.

The MPP/Gilead license for TDF is mostly a license to manufacture, sell and
export TDF from India. If the patent protection for TDF is weak or
non-existent in India or elsewhere, companies are free to make and sell TDF
outside of the license. Gilead is trying to make and exploit a patent claim
in India, and has offered a voluntary, severable, license to the Pool for
that patent, with a 3 percent to 5 percent royalty, collected in India, that
would operate outside of any compulsory licensing of the TDF patents. In a
worst case scenario, Gilead collects 3 to 5 percent of the generic price of
a product in the licensed area, and whatever royalties are granted via
compulsory licenses outside of the licensed area.

Another criticism raised by ITPC/I-MAK concerns the royalty free grant-back
license to Gilead for improvements made by licensees. ITPC/I-MAK argues that
these provisions, contained in Sections 2.3 and 5.2, raise potential
competition problems. What Gilead has obtained in the license is a freedom
to operate clause. Gilead did not receive a right to ownerhip of any
improvements, other than a right for their own use. Only the originator of
the improvement has the right to license or share the improvement with third
parties, on terms the originator choses.

The grant-back license for Gilead's sole use is non-exclusive and is limited
to improvements made prior to any termination of the license of the product.
The license does not preclude a Licensee from submitting a patent
application for the improvements (Section 5.2 governs the reporting
requirements of the Licensee and specifically notes that the Licensee's
annual report include "any patent applications claiming Improvements") and
the ability to terminate its license on the product allows a Licensee to end
its agreement with Gilead and subsequently use the improvements it has
developed to manufacture the product.

The MPP/Gilead agreement can and should work in tandem with other strategies
to improve access to medicines. I-MAK acknowledges that the licenses do not
contain a "no challenge" provision to patent validity, and they specifically
provide that its is not a breach of the license to operate under a
compulsory license. The licenses do not block any system of pre- and
post-grant opposition; spurious patents can still be challenged, and the
MPP/Gilead agreement does not create any legal obstacles on this front.

I-MAK is correct in noting areas where the licenses are problematic, such as
the insistence that the products be manufactured in India, and the issues
with the TDF patent landscape, which have been discussed for several years,
following the earlier Gilead voluntary license. While these criticisms
exist, the new licenses with the Patent Pool are in fact much more
pro-competitive and pro-compulsory licensing than the older licenses, and
that will benefit entities seeking lower cost sources of newer AIDS drugs.


-- 
Krista Cox
Staff Attorney
Knowledge Ecology International
www.keionline.org
(202) 332-2670



More information about the Ip-health mailing list