Indian Patent Office Rejected Compulsory License Application (C.L.A. No.1 of 2015) for “Saxagliptin” Filed by Lee Pharma Ltd.

In an order dated 19th January 2016, the Controller of Patents rejected the compulsory license application of Hyderabad based drug maker Lee Pharma Ltd. to manufacture generic version of AstraZeneca’s anti-diabetic drug Saxagliptin. The Controller of Patents rejected the application on the grounds that substitutes to the drug Saxagliptin are readily available in the Indian market and the Lee Pharma’s claim that requirements of public with respect to the patented invention are not being satisfied has not been proven.

Lee Pharma filed an application under Section 84 (1) of the Patents Act 1970 on 29th June 2015, seeking grant of a compulsory license for manufacturing and selling the compound Saxagliptin (an anti-diabetic drug), which is protected by Patent number 206543 titled “A cyclopropyl-fused pyrrolidine-based compound” granted on 30th April 2007 to Bristal Myers Squibb (BMS). BMS transferred the ownership rights in the Indian patent 206543 to AstraZeneca by virtue of an assignment deed.

While the patent office had heard Lee Pharma’s case in August 2015 and denied a compulsory license, the application was heard afresh after Shri. O P Gupta, the new controller general of patents, assumed office in November 2015. In August 2015, Shri. Rajiv Aggarwal, the then Controller of patents had rejected the compulsory license application. “The applicant has failed to prima facie show that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India…I am therefore of the view that a prima facie case has not been made out for the making of an order under Section 84,” Aggarwal said in his Aug. 2015 order.

Lee Parma made the compulsory license application on the grounds that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price and that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.

Lee Pharma submitted that out of all DPP-4 inhibitors presently available in India, Saxagliptin is the latest and the best option for the treatment of Type-II diabetes while the others have side effects, and there is more than 99% shortage of Saxagliptin in the Indian Market, therefore the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention under Section 84 (1)(a) were not satisfied by the Patentee.

However, the Controller observed that Lee Pharma’s submission has not demonstrated the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of Saxagliptin and also the exact quantitative requirement of Saxagliptin in India in terms of number of patients requiring it by way of any authentic data or concrete evidence. The Controller noted that in the absence of any authentic evidence from any statutory authority, it is difficult to conclude whether or not the Patentee is meeting the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of the patented invention.

The Controller further noted that the availability and affordability of Saxagliptin in India could not be determined as Lee Pharma, in their application or in their submissions, has not furnished the details of the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of Saxagliptin, the comparative requirements of Saxagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors such as Linagliptin, Sitagliptin and Vildagliptin, or any authentic data/statistics on Saxagliptin prescription by the doctors over other DPP-4 inhibitors.

In addition, under clause (c) of Section 84 (1), Lee Pharma submitted that the Patentee has not taken adequate steps to manufacture Saxagliptin in India and make full use of the invention in India to an adequate extent that is reasonable practicable even after the lapse of a long period of about eight years from the date of grant (30th April 2007). Lee Pharma also submitted that the working of the patented product in the country was hindered by the importation from abroad.

This ground was rejected on the basis that manufacturing the drug in India is not a precondition to establish working in India. The Controller noted that it was difficult to conclude whether manufacturing in India was necessary or not since Lee Pharma failed to show the exact quantitative requirement of Saxagliptin in India in terms of number of patients requiring it.

In the latest order of 19th 2016, Gupta said, “As the applicant has failed to provide evidence along with application or during hearing or by supplementary submissions and failed to satisfy the controller regarding any of the grounds as specified in Section 84(1) of the Act, I am therefore of the view that a prima facie case has not been made out for making of an order U/S 84 of the Act. Therefore, the application for grant of compulsory license by the applicant is hereby rejected.”

About the Author: Antony David, Senior Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: antony@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

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

eight + nine =

Archives

  • October 2021
  • 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