Compulsory Licensing in India Amidst the COVID 19 Pandemic: Will India Consider it?

The COVID-19 pandemic has truly exposed the frailty of our infrastructural systems. Innovation has taken a front seat and the world is keenly awaiting the public distribution of COVID-19 vaccines which would help restore normalcy.  Among the numerous factors that were taken into consideration by global experts with respect to the COVID 19 vaccines, accessibility and distribution issues have taken the forefront. This, along with other factors concerning patent legislation, have put developing nations in a precarious position, pushing them to be calculative of their infrastructure, economic conditions and to evaluate their channels to mass manufacture the vaccines while deliberating the issues associated with the patentability of the COVID-19 vaccines. Before exploring the various nuances of compulsory licensing, it is important to understand the benefits of a pharmaceutical patent. A pharmaceutical patent would allow pharmaceutical conglomerates to acquire royalties, protect the innovation behind the vaccine from commercial exploitation and monopolize the invention to a very large extent. Additionally, it would receive a protection of 20 years that would be provided by the WTO members since the filing date of the patent under the TRIPS agreement. Pharmaceutical patenting would fuel innovation and R&D while ensuring that the inventors behind the product are incentivized. This is essential in order to promote growth in the pharmaceutical industry, or any sector for that matter which would in turn play a pivotal role in contributing to the economic growth of a country.
remdesivir
[Image Source: gettyimages]

Compulsory licensing is closely related to pharmaceutical patents. It may be defined as the scenario wherein an authorization is granted by the Controller General of Patents to a third party to use, make or sell a patented product/process. Under compulsory licensing, the permission of the patent owner to make or sell the patented product/process is not necessary. Chapter XVI of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 deals with compulsory licensing. Under this chapter (particularly sections 84 and 92), various criterions are enlisted that has to be satisfied in order to grant a compulsory license.  Section 84 lays down the criterions as follows:

“At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the 170 [grant] of a patent, any person interested may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory licence on patent on any of the following grounds, namely: –

(a) that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or(b) that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or(c) that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.”

Moreover, section 92 emphasizes on criterion that are related to extra ordinary circumstances as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where the Control­ler is satisfied on consideration of the application referred to in clause (i) of sub­-section (1) that it is necessary in-

  • a circumstance of national emergency; or
  • a circumstance of extreme urgency;
  • a case of public non-commercial use,”

In sum, it can be said that the Controller General grants an exclusive permission to use, make or sell the patented product/process under extraordinary circumstances which may include public need (instances wherein the patented product/process is not easily accessible to the general public), national emergency, extreme urgency or if the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India. Compulsory licenses have been invoked in the past. A lifesaving drug called Nexavar which was used to treat liver and kidney cancer, was incredibly expensive and unaffordable by many in India. It was speculated that a month’s dosage costed up to 2.8 Lakh. In 2012, the patent office granted a compulsory license to Natco Pharma for manufacturing Nexavar. Consequently, Nexavar was available to the general public at an affordable price of Rs. 9000.

With the onset of the COVID 19 pandemic, several drugs have become inaccessible for many due to exorbitant pricing. It would right to note that the COVID 19 pandemic is indeed a national emergency and it is indeed a matter of extreme urgency. In that light, it is speculated that the Government would grant compulsory licenses for COVID related medical products. Recently, pharmaceutical conglomerate Gilead had decided to sign a non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreement with pharmaceutical manufacturers in India (including Dr Reddy’s Laboratories and Cipla Ltd.) for the manufacturing of remdesivir in order to remove any barriers that may impede the accessibility of availing the drug in India. However, unlike compulsory licensing, the licensee here (Gilead) had voluntarily decided to share the technology behind the medicine until the WHO declares the end of the pandemic.

Over the last year, several National and International efforts have been made to remove any barriers that may affect the accessibility to COVID related medical products. This included the WTO TRIPS waiver wherein India was a co-sponsor along with South Africa. In the month of October 2020, India and South Africa submitted a joint proposal seeking the waiver of IP rights and patents under provisions of TRIPS Agreement (more specifically, sections 1, 4,5 & 7 of Part II) for COVID-19 medical supplies. The primary objective of the waiver is to ensure that there is no delay in accessibility of the vaccine due to stringent patent laws concerning the COVID 19 vaccine. However, most developed countries opposed the same and opined that this would tarnish the objectives of granting patents, its principles and that it would “send the wrong message to industry investors”.

It is pertinent to note that although India is a co-sponsor of the TRIPS waiver, the Indian Government has constantly inhibited compulsory licensing as an option amidst the pandemic, which is in contrariety with the essence of the TRIPS waiver. Moreover, during the hearing of a Suo moto case related to the pandemic in April 2021, the Supreme Court did enquire regarding compulsory licensing to the Centre especially with regards to COVID related drugs such as Remdesivir and Favipiravir. However, no satisfactory response was obtained and the final decision regarding compulsory licensing of the drugs was left to the Centre.  Nevertheless, there is hope. Recently, in July 2021, a bipartisan parliamentary committee on commerce has suggested to invoke compulsory licensing on all COVID related medical products. This was published in the report titled ‘Review of Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India’.  The panel suggested that granting compulsory license would help amp up the manufacturing of COVID related medical products, including COVID vaccines amidst a ‘National health emergency’. The Centre is yet to devise a response for the same. While millions across all walks of life are impacted by the pandemic, it would be prudent for the Government to invoke compulsory licensing at the earliest possible. This would expedite the manufacturing process of several drugs, thus increasing accessibility. In sum, it would be right to say that invoking compulsory licensing would be imperative in order to battle the pandemic effectively.

Author: Sanjana, a BBA LLB student of  Symbiosis Law School (Hyderabad), in case of any queries please contact/write back to IIPRD at vidushi@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

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

four × 5 =

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010