[Ip-health] Don't Trade Our Lives Away: Breaking News: Supreme Court of India rejected Bayer’s appeal to set aside CL on Cancer Drug – Sorafenib Tosylate

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Sun Dec 14 22:57:48 PST 2014


https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/breaking-news-supreme-court-of-india-rejected-bayers-appeal-to-set-aside-cl-on-cancer-drug-sorafenib-tosylate/

<SNIP>
In the Supreme Court proceedings, Justice Nariman enquired why Bayer had
not made available the research and development (R&D) expenses to develop
the drug which would have been the best evidence to arrive at a reasonable
rate of royalty. Bayer argued that 98% costs accrue from failed drugs,
making it impossible to provide a precise account. Unimpressed, the Bench
opined that in absence of any evidence supplied by Bayer, the affidavit of
James (“Jamie”) Packard Love – the director of Knowledge Ecology
International – providing information that R&D costs have been recouped
within the first year itself, can be taken into account. The affidavit can
be found here
<http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/aff-jameslove_13Feb2012_as_Filed.pd%20f>


--

Breaking News: Supreme Court of India rejected Bayer’s appeal to set aside
CL on Cancer Drug – Sorafenib Tosylate
<https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/breaking-news-supreme-court-of-india-rejected-bayers-appeal-to-set-aside-cl-on-cancer-drug-sorafenib-tosylate/>
Posted on December 13, 2014
<https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/breaking-news-supreme-court-of-india-rejected-bayers-appeal-to-set-aside-cl-on-cancer-drug-sorafenib-tosylate/>
by donttradeourlivesaway
<https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/author/donttradeourlivesaway/>

Amidst intense US pressure on behalf of its pharmaceutical industry
to undermine the use of public health safeguards in India’s patent law,
the decision of the Indian Supreme Court brings cheer.

Yesterday (12 December 2014) the Supreme Court of India refused to
entertain Bayer’s appeal to set aside the compulsory license (CL) on the
anti-cancer drug sorafenib.

The Supreme Court’s decision – upholding the legal validity of the CL
and dismissal of Bayer’s Special Leave Petition – concludes the
legal proceedings on the first ever CL issued in India.  The CL granted by
the Indian Patent Controller in March 2012 to a generic manufacturer for
the kidney and liver cancer drug sorafenib tosylate, was unsuccessfully
challenged by Bayer before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board
(IPAB), Bombay High Court and later before the Supreme Court. The SLP filed
by Bayer challenging the order of the Bombay High Court was listed before
Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohington Nariman.

In the Supreme Court proceedings, Justice Nariman enquired why Bayer had
not made available the research and development (R&D) expenses to develop
the drug which would have been the best evidence to arrive at a reasonable
rate of royalty. Bayer argued that 98% costs accrue from failed drugs,
making it impossible to provide a precise account. Unimpressed, the Bench
opined that in absence of any evidence supplied by Bayer, the affidavit of
James (“Jamie”) Packard Love – the director of Knowledge Ecology
International – providing information that R&D costs have been recouped
within the first year itself, can be taken into account. The affidavit can
be found here
<http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/aff-jameslove_13Feb2012_as_Filed.pd%20f>

The Bench also noted that the Bayer failed to supply the drug to
a significant number of cancer patients who require it despite the
existence of its patient access programme.

The compulsory licence was granted in March 2012 by India’s Controller
of Patents to the generic company Natco, allowing it to market the
generic version for the eight years the cancer drug sorafenib tosylate will
remain patented in India (until 2020), and against the payment of a royalty
(6% which was later revised to 7%).

The reasoning behind the decision: Bayer had made the drug available to
only a small percentage of eligible patients (approximately slightly above
2 percent), which did not meet the requirements of the public. The price of
Rs 280,000 per month (approximately US$5,500) was not “reasonably
affordable.”

Natco was required to make the drug available within India at a price of
not more than Rs 8,800 (approximately US$175) for one month’s treatment.

The order of the compulsory licence can be found here
<http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipoNew/compulsory_License_12032012.pdf>

The IPAB decision by Justice (Ms) Sridevan upholding the compulsory
licence can be readhere  <http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/045-2013.htm>

The decision of the Supreme Court is still to be published on its
official website.



More information about the Ip-health mailing list