SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Brazilian Generic Drug Registration Sets Standard For ‘Pipeline’ Patents

    Published on 13 May 2010 @ 11:53 am

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The first Brazilian generic drug against erectile dysfunction recently received registration at the National Surveillance Agency – a unit of the Health Ministry. The Viagra generic’s registration was only possible because of a decision of the Superior Court that will terminate the drug patent next month, said Odnir Finotti, president of the Pro-Generics Association.

    The decision of Superior Court was announced on 28 April. From 20 June, generic Viagra production will be allowed and competition promises to benefit Brazilian consumers.

    According to Jorge Ávila, president of National Institute of Industrial Property (in Portuguese, Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial), “pharmaceutical generic laboratories announced the launch of Viagra generics with the price up to 50 percent lower than today.” Viagra has been sold in Brazil since 1998. These days, a box with four tablets of 50 mg costs US$77.

    In a press release, Viagra brand owner Pfizer took issue with the decision, stating, “We respect, but disagree with the Superior Court decision.” The pharmaceutical company argues that the period of patent exclusivity until mid-2011 was a way to guarantee the investment in development of Viagra.

    The guarantee of investment ensured in the research and development of new drugs ensures the enabling of innovation, it said. Under Brazilian law, the pharmaceutical company may appeal the decision.

    Pipeline to Debate

    The polemic is over Brazilian “pipeline” patents. In 1996, Brazilian Industrial Property Law number 9.279 created the mechanism known as the pipeline, which allowed patent claims to be accepted and approved for technological fields that had not been recognised previously, such as pharmaceutical and food products, based on the date of first foreign filing. The rule effectively created monopoly situations in some cases where items had already entered the public domain, sources said. For more on this debate, see (IPW, Public Health, 22 January 2008).

    In Brazil, the maximum period for a foreign patent is 20 years.

    In June 1990, Viagra received a registration in England. However, Pfizer says that request was not concluded and the registration was only finished in 1991, in the European Union. As a result, the laboratory demands an extension of one more year, until 2011.

    Ávila disagreed and said Pfizer’s argument “was based on an inappropriate idea, in our view, that whatever reason for the extension of a patent term of protection in the origin country, a similar extension should be granted a pipeline patent in Brazil.”

    He explained that patent applications at the national level in European countries may lead to applications to the European Patent Office up to 12 months after the first request, keeping the original date, and if the patent application is given, the protection across the entire continent is for 20 years from the second application. Thus, the protection in the origin country is extended by up to 12 months.

    The National Institute of Industrial Property, said Ávila, respects the European liberality, but for him it is obvious in Brazil the patent extension cannot be affected by European particularities. Some countries give an extension because of delays during the proceedings of the patent applications. It is evident to Ávila, however, that the patent in the Brazil has not been extended due to delays in the origin country.

    This decision is expected to have a major impact. “We hope that the decision represents the understanding of pipeline patents,” said Ávila. He said the Superior Court of Justice confirmed INPI’s view on the debate. The time of a patent begins counting from the date of the first deposit, which is called the date of “Union priority,” regardless of what will occur later with this patent anywhere in the world.

    Odnir Finotti, from Pro-Generics, agrees that the decision is very important because it defines the term of a patent in Brazil and thus prevents other actions in the Brazilian courts. “Now it is clear, we can plan a generic drug launched at the market in an advance and we know the rules of the market.”

    There are at least 30 other drugs in the same situation and whose laboratories are requesting an extension in Brazil. There are drugs for cholesterol, stroke, hypertension, obesity, hepatitis, cancer, diabetes and other. According to Finotti, today there are 91 pharmaceutical companies that produce generic drugs. These laboratories are responsible for some 3,000 different drugs for 90 percent of diseases.

    The Brazilian Viagra market is estimated at US$114 million per year. If all Brazilians used only generic Viagra, explained Finotti, the savings would be US$40 million. Since generic drugs were introduced in the country in 2001 up to now, Brazilians have saved US$10.28 billion with the consumption of all generic medicine.[Note: paragraph clarified]

    Regarding retaliation from multinational pharmaceutical companies, INPI’s Ávila said he does not think it possible. He praised the fact that in many countries there is no patent on Viagra because it predates the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and most countries did not adopt the “pipeline” mechanism.

    Claudia Jurberg may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. ks says:

      as a point of clarification, this appears to be a different conflict than the one over pipeline patents per se (which the article links to, from a January 2008 story). There are two issues. The first is whether Brazil should grant pipeline patents (it is one of the few countries in the world to do so, and as the 2008 article explains the costs of this decision are quite high). The second issue is, given that Brazil does grant pipeline patents, whether Brazil then automatically adjusts expiration dates as these are adjusted abroad. The “viagra” case discussed in this article appears to be about this latter point.

    2. Nuno Pires de Carvalho says:

      In Brazil there are two other issues pending that are related to this matter, besides the constitutionality (or not) of pipeline patents (hence, of their outright invalidity (or not)), and the extension of pipeline patent terms to correspond to the term of subsequent patents obatined abroad (the Brazilian statute says that the 20-year term of pipeline patents should be counted from the date of the original application). Those two additional issues are: the possible extension of the terms of pipeline patents so as to correspond to the extended terms of patents in Europe, as per the concession of SPCs (supplementary protection certificates) in order to compensate for the delay in obtaining marketing approval; and the possibility of the Brazilian sanitary agency (ANVISA) to hold the marketing approval of bioequivalent pharmaceutical entities pending the existence of a patent (the so-called linkage). The vote of one of the Superior Curt of Justice judges on the Viagra case clearly spoke against extending the terms of pipeline patents to compensate for delays in obtaining marketing approval in Europe.

    3. wackes seppi says:

      Something really wrong with the math, or with the knowledge of the market… or both.

    4. William New says:

      Thanks for pointing that out Wackes. The paragraph has been clarified as follows: The Brazilian Viagra market is estimated at US$114 million per year. If all Brazilians used only generic Viagra, explained Finotti, the savings would be US$40 million. Since generic drugs were introduced in the country in 2001 up to now, Brazilians have saved US$10.28 billion with the consumption of all generic medicine.

    5. Brazil HIV Drug Patent Ruling Allows Generics, Sends Pipeline Process Into Doubt | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] pipeline process in Brazil had already come into question in recent years (IPW, Public Health, 13 May 2010) and this decision furthers that [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.227.63.195