• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

Truvada Case Shows Civil Society’s Success With Pre-Grant Opposition

08/05/2018 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 15 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

[Note: This story is part of the Supported Series on The Role of Civil Society In TRIPS Flexibilities Implementation, made possible by the Make Medicines Affordable organisation. IP-Watch retains editorial independence over the articles in this series.] 

[This article has been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Thai, available here.]

The example of Gilead antiretroviral Truvada in Argentina and Brazil shows how civil society efforts to use patent opposition to patents it felt were unjustified were rewarded by patent withdrawal and rejection, even if the situation in Brazil might not be entirely settled.

NGO coalition (La Red Latinoamericana por el Acceso a Medicamentos (RedLAM)) demonstration outside the WTO Ministerial in Buenos Aires

Patent opposition is one of the flexibilities available under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It is also a tool widely used by civil society to challenge patents which they consider unjustified and unlawful. Their analysis of patent applications is recognised as very useful by patent offices, according to several sources.

Truvada is an antiretroviral product from Gilead composed of a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Gilead has met resistance from civil society groups in some countries when trying to patent the combination drug, and in particular in Argentina and Brazil, where civil society has filed patent oppositions. In Argentina, Gilead withdrew its patent application, while in Brazil, according to sources, the global pharmaceutical company might push its case to courts.

Gilead was asked for comment for this story, but a spokesperson said the company does not comment on the status of its patents and patent applications.

Truvada was also found to be an efficient preventive medicine for people who do not have HIV but are at risk of getting infected. This preventive use of the combination medicine, although recommended by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, beyond IP issues has met resistance in Argentina and Brazil on the account that it might encourage unprotected sex.

Argentina: Civil Society Hails Victory

In November 2016, the Argentina National Institute of Industrial Property requested that Gilead withdraw its patent application for Truvada, according the Fundación Grupo Efecto Positivo (FGEP).

FGEP participated in the case by filing an opposition to the patent application in April 2015, according to the foundation.

Lorena Di Giano, executive director of FGEP, highlighted the important role of civil society in examination of patents. FGEP gets a copy of patent applications that the organisation deems important for health, she told Intellectual Property Watch, and analyses those patent applications against Argentina patentability requirements.

When they find that an application does not meet patentability criteria, in particular novelty, inventive step and industrial application, they submit evidence of those shortcomings to the Argentinean patent office, she said.

In the case of Truvada, by the time FGEP filed a pre-grant patent opposition, a large number of people were receiving Truvada as part of their HIV treatment in Argentina, and the cost of the medicines was representing a substantial burden for the ministry of health. At that time, the cost of the Truvada treatment for the ministry of health was US$2700 per person, per year, which represented US$12million/year in 2015, she explained.

FGEP found that Truvada did not meet the novelty criteria because it is a combination of drugs which had already been patented by Gilead, and in that case is not patentable under the Argentinean legislation, she said.

The work of FGEP contributes to the patent office examination work, according to Di Giano. As explained in a FGEP post [pdf] (in Spanish), the evidence submitted by FGEP were used by the patent office, which included it in its justification for the rejection of Gilead’s patent on Truvada. The office also argued that treatment methods are not considered as an invention in Argentina, the post said.

The patent office asked Gilead to defend its position against the rejection, but Gilead subsequently withdrew its patent application, she said.

The other important aspect of the Truvada case, she said, is that local generics had also filed a patent opposition and were ready to enter the market. As soon as the patent application was withdrawn, they sought to register their products. Local producers entered the market and the price of Truvada dropped significantly, she said. That gave the Argentinean government a cheaper alternative for the medicine, she added.

Argentinean generic producers cannot match the Indian generic prices, she said, but the withdrawal of the patent on Truvada in Argentina allowed generics to enter the market and price competition, reducing prices in a sustainable way. It not only reduced the price for the ministry of health, but also for other procurement agencies in Argentina, she added.

Brazil: Truvada Also Meets Trouble

According to a Make Medicines Affordable (MMA) post, in January 2017, Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) announced that it had rejected the patent application filed by Gilead Sciences back in January 2004, covering the combination of TDF and emtricitabine.

Sources close to INPI confirmed that the INPI denied the patent request and Gilead appealed. In its first analysis, the appellate commission found no grounds for the appeal, sources said. Gilead then sent a submission which is still under examination, they said. The administrative procedures have not been concluded yet but it is expected that, if INPI confirms the denial, Gilead will go to the courts, sources said.

The rejection of Gilead’s patent application meant that Truvada can be marketed in Brazil at low prices, the MMA said. The Working Group on Intellectual Property (GTPI) coordinated by the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA) had filed an opposition to the patent application, providing technical, legal and public health arguments.

In particular, the opposition said the patent did not meet the patentability requirements of novelty, inventive activity, and lacked sufficient descriptive clarity and precision. Patents relating to emtricitabine were not filed in Brazil, so emtricitabine was in the Brazilian public domain, the opposition said.

The other drug, TDF, had been previously rejected by the INPI for failing to meet the requirements of patentability, notably, in inventive step.

In August 2016, “Gilead’s patent request was rejected by the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) that conducts the prior examination of pharmaceutical patents jointly with the patent office, based on arguments presented by GTPI in 2010. However, Gilead went to the courts and successfully reversed the decision, and the application examination went forward,” the MMA post explains.

ABIA/GTPI with the support of MMA sent new technical arguments to the patent office to highlight the lack of an inventive step in the patent application, which served as the basis for the rejection of Gilead’s application, according to the MMA.

ABIA has been struggling with Gilead over patents since 2008, said Pedro Villardi of ABIA. In the case of Truvada, tenofovir was a very old drug and emtricitabine was never patented in Brazil. Putting Truvada in the public domain provides the Brazilian government purchase options, he told Intellectual Property Watch.

Patent Opposition Key, Short Term Issue

According to Prof. Frederick Abbott, Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor of International Law at the Florida State University College of Law, patent opposition is very important everywhere, and is an integral part of the patent system.

The difficulty with patent opposition in the short term is that companies may not want to invest in production and distribution until the patent opposition is resolved. So, depending on the complexity of the patent opposition and the time frame, there might not be a near term resolution allowing generic supply to move forward.

Where there is supply capacity, generic entry can promptly follow successful opposition. For something like Hep C treatment, where a successful patent opposition may spill across markets and address a long-term global supply issue, challenging fundamental patents can have substantial long-run benefits.

PrEP Beyond IP Issue, Polemic on Use

Beyond its use to treat HIV patients, Truvada can also be used as a preventive medication. According to Gilead, Truvada became the first antiretroviral product to be approved in the United States for use in combination with safer sex practices to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV-1, a strategy called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this secondary use of Truvada has received mixed reactions in Brazil and Argentina.

The use of Truvada for PrEP raises questions beyond the IP field, according to Villardi, as the preventive use of the medicine has been seen by some as encouraging unprotected sex. ABIA has started since 2017 a public campaign to raise awareness against high prices, but also against constraints or moral objections to the use of Truvada, and the right to access new prevention tools, he said.

In Argentina, the use of Truvada as PrEP is still under discussion, Di Giano said, and has provoked a lot of debate in the country. The promoters of PrEP are presenting it as a combination prevention measure, but in reality people who use PrEP have a tendency to not use condoms, she said.

The Argentinean Ministry of Health is still analysing the possibility of including Truvada in a public policy, she said. For the moment, FGEP’s position is to promote the use of condoms rather than promoting Truvada as PrEP, she said, adding that the inclusion of Truvada as PrEP would also bring some budget implications if it was included in the Argentinean public health policy.

Being able to acquire or manufacture generic versions of Truvada would help preventive policies such as PrEP recommended by the World Health Organization and UNICEF in their HIV/AIDS treatment guidelines, the MMA post said.

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “When someone is exposed to HIV through sex or injection drug use, these medicines [PrEP] can work to keep the virus from establishing a permanent infection.”

“When taken consistently, PrEP has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection in people who are at high risk by up to 92%. PrEP is much less effective if it is not taken consistently,” it says, adding that “people who use PrEP must commit to taking the drug every day and seeing their health care provider for follow-up every 3 months.”

 

Image Credits: José Luis Schanzenbach

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

Creative Commons License"Truvada Case Shows Civil Society’s Success With Pre-Grant Opposition" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Features, IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, English, Health & IP, Health Policy Watch, Human Rights, Innovation/ R&D, Latin America/Caribbean, Lobbying, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, Regional Policy, Supported By, TRIPS Flexibilities, WTO/TRIPS

Trackbacks

  1. Truvada Case Shows Civil Society’s Success With Pre-Grant Opposition - Intellectual Property Business = IPBIZ says:
    08/05/2018 at 5:10 pm

    […] Truvada Case Shows Civil Society’s Success With Pre-Grant Opposition […]

    Reply
  2. Truvada Case Shows Civil Society’s Success With Pre-Grant Opposition - Make Medicines Affordable says:
    12/05/2018 at 2:42 pm

    […] Original version first published on IP-Watch. Author: Catherine Saez. […]

    Reply
  3. El caso de Truvada demuestra el éxito de la sociedad civil con la oposición anterior a la concesión de patentes - Intellectual Property Watch says:
    09/08/2018 at 9:43 pm

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  4. Caso Truvada mostra o sucesso da sociedade civil com oposição a patentes - Intellectual Property Watch says:
    09/08/2018 at 9:56 pm

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  5. Случай «Трувада» как пример успешности гражданского общества в Ð¾Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ says:
    09/08/2018 at 10:02 pm

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  6. กรณีของทรูวาดาชี้ถึงความสำเร็จของภาคประช says:
    09/08/2018 at 10:08 pm

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  7. กรณีของทรูวาดาชี้ถึงความสำเร็จของภาคประช says:
    09/08/2018 at 10:42 pm

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  8. Случай «Трувада» как пример успешности гражданского общества в Ð¾Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ says:
    14/08/2018 at 12:11 am

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  9. กรณีของทรูวาดาชี้ถึงความสำเร็จของภาคประช says:
    14/08/2018 at 1:55 am

    […] [View the original English version here.] […]

    Reply
  10. Truvada : quand la société civile s’oppose avec succès à l’octroi d’un brevet - Make Medicines Affordable says:
    16/08/2018 at 12:22 pm

    […] [View the original English version here, article by IP-WATCH.] […]

    Reply
  11. El caso de Truvada demuestra el éxito de la sociedad civil con la oposición anterior a la concesión de patentes - Make Medicines Affordable says:
    16/08/2018 at 12:23 pm

    […] [View the original English version here, article by IP-WATCH.] […]

    Reply
  12. Caso Truvada mostra o sucesso da sociedade civil com oposição a patentes - Make Medicines Affordable says:
    16/08/2018 at 12:25 pm

    […] [View the original English version here, article by IP-WATCH.] […]

    Reply
  13. Случай «Трувада» как пример успешности гражданского общества в Ð¾Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ says:
    16/08/2018 at 12:26 pm

    […] [View the original English version here, article by IP-WATCH.] […]

    Reply
  14. รณีของทรูวาดาชี้ถึงความสำเร็จของภาคประชา says:
    16/08/2018 at 12:27 pm

    […] [View the original English version here, article by IP-WATCH.] […]

    Reply
  15. Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series - Translations Now Available - Intellectual Property Watch says:
    20/08/2018 at 2:46 pm

    […] Truvada Case Shows Civil Society’s Success With Pre-Grant Opposition […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Top Global Health stories

New WHO Director Tedros’s Opening Vision: People First

Enter The African Medicines Agency, Continent’s First Super-Regulator?

More health stories...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.