Cross-posted from PHM-Exchange@phm.phmovement.org
Please see this sign-on letter by Third World Network addressed to WIPO regarding patents and public health. The Standing Committee on the Law of Patents is meeting next week and will discuss proposals under this agenda item; one by the Development Agenda Group and the African Group, and the other by the USA.
You are invited to sign and to share this email with other interested gro ups. Please send an email to sangeeta@twnetwork.org or ssangeeta@myjaring.net by 21st May 2012.
-------------------------------
Next week the WIPO Committee on Patents will meet. On the agenda is a proposal by the Development Agenda Group and the Africa Group on patents and public health. See
*http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_18/scp_18_ref_scp_16_7.pdf *This proposal was submitted on May 2011. But at a subsequent session, the US submitted a proposal which makes outrageous statements on the issue of patents and public health. Basically US is claiming that patents do not adversely impact access to medicines; flexibilities particularly compulsory license do not promote public health, endorses voluntary approaches, and calls for a discussion on falsified and substandard medicines (an issue totally unrelated to patents) in the SCP.
The US proposal is available at:
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_18/scp_18_ref_scp_17_11.pdf
Thus some of us thought it would be a good idea to draft a letter in support of the DAG and Africa Group proposal and to oppose the US proposal.
See the Open Letter below on this issue
*If you (as an individual) or your organisation would like to support this letter, pls do send an email to sangeeta@twnetwork.org or ssangeeta@myjaring.net by 21st May 2012. *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*OPEN LETTER TO WIPO MEMBER STATES ON PATENTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH*
*The undersigned civil society organizations would like to express their support for the proposal on patents and public health submitted to the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP) by the Development Agenda Group (DAG) and the Africa Group (SCP/16/7). *
*The undersigned civil society organizations would also like to express serious concerns with regard to the US proposal on patents and public health contained in SCP/17/11 and request the US to withdraw its proposal from the SCP. *
We are of the view that the US proposal is frivolous and aimed at trivialising the impact of patents on access to medicines. In addition, several aspects of the US proposals fall outside the mandate of the SCP and thus must not be accepted. ****
The US argues that a number of factors affect the availability of medicines in developing countries. While this may be the case, the “price” factor can singularly can be determinative of life or death, where a deadly disease is treatable. ****
In the past decade, ARV prices have dropped from more than US$10,000 per person per year (pppy) in 2000 to less than US$65 pppy today – improved first line regimens costing US$24,972 in the US cost as little as $219 from generic producers. These 99%+ cost-savings have made lifesaving drugs accessible to millions of people, that by the end of 2010, 6.6 million people in low- and middle-income countries had access to ARV therapy compared to 300 000 in 2002. ****
A twenty-two-fold increase in ARV coverage was only possible due to competition from suppliers of generic drugs principally from India, where the drugs were not patented as India used transitional period flexibility under TRIPS. This single example shows how the removal of patent barriers can have enormous positive impact for access to medicines throughout the world. ****
The US SCP proposal undermines the role of patent flexibilities particularly compulsory licensing in improving access to affordable treatments. It is clear that the US has deliberately chosen to ignore concrete evidence available today on the positive impact of the use of public health relevant flexibilities on public health.[1]<#1375b89b8836cced_1375b431f5cb5e11__ftn1>
The case of India provides solid evidence on how the use of the transitional period facilitated the availability of generic medicines, which in turn enabled massive scaling up of HIV/AIDS treatment. Use of flexibilities such as pre-grant opposition and prohibition on patenting of new uses of existing pharmaceuticals available in India’s Patent Act has also facilitated access. For instance, in 2006, public-interest groups filed an opposition against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s application for a patent on Combivir arguing that the product is a combination of two drugs in one pill and thus not deserving of a patent under the Indian patent law. Following filing of the pre-grant opposition, GSK withdrew its pending patent applications in India as well as in other countries enabling improved access to generic versions of Combivir.
A number of countries have also used compulsory licensing to overcome the patent barrier and improve access to medicines. This includes Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Thailand, and Indonesia and evidence available suggests that overall the compulsory licenses led to availability of more affordable generic versions of medicines in the country issuing the license.[2]<#1375b89b8836cced_1375b431f5cb5e11__ftn2>
Most recently the Indian patent office granted a compulsory license to a local manufacturer on Bayer's anti-cancer medicine sorafenib on the ground that the patented drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price. The patented version costs US$5600 per month while the generic version produced under the compulsory license would only costs US176, i.e. at a price reduced by nearly 97%. As a result of the compulsory license other generic producers have also slashed prices of other key cancer drugs by more than 50%. The compulsory license clearly will improve access to affordable medicines for cancer patients in India. ****
In view of this concrete evidence that is publicly known, it is indeed shameful that the US government continues to question the role of patent flexibilities to improve access to medicines. The importance of using flexibilities to improve public health is recognized in various international instruments, to which US is a
party[3]<#1375b89b8836cced_1375b431f5cb5e11__ftn3>,
and yet the US continues to insist otherwise in its proposal to the SCP. ***