E-DRUG: Ugandan move on patented drugs' import worries Indian companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
This could have quite an impact on supplying generics to Uganda (and
Kenya):
<http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ugandan-movepatented-drugs-
importrt-worries-indian-companies/351054/>
This links up with an earlier post from Moses Mulumba, especially his
remark 'I hope his (president Museveni - RB) definition of counterfeits
does not include generics.':
http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/200902/msg00041.php
The article:
Ugandan move on patented drugs' import worries Indian companies
Joe C Mathew / New Delhi March 6, 2009, 0:39 IST
Uganda, the fourth-largest importer of Indian medicines in Africa, is
discussing a draft proposal to prevent entry of drugs defined as
"counterfeit" for breaching intellectual property claims, which analysts
here say will impair Indian firms' ability to export drugs into that
country.
The anti-counterfeit Bill being discussed there is similar to the one
proposed by Kenya. The Kenyan parliament has accepted the amendment and
the Bill is awaiting presidential nod.
Africa accounts for 14 per cent of India's $8-billion medicine exports.
While Kenya imported Rs 342.4 crore worth of medicines from India in
2007-08, Uganda's share was Rs 185 crore.
The African nations' move to link intellectual property issues in this
manner has come despite the defeat (due to pressure from India, among
other reasons) of a recent attempt to similarly change the World Health
Organisation definition of "counterfeiting."
The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), a group of leading domestic
drug firms that account for over half of India's total drug exports, say
the new legislation are being encouraged under pressure from
multinational lobbyists.
"Global pharma lobby groups seem to have succeeded in influencing
developing countries like Kenya and Uganda," says DG Shah,
secretary-general of the IPA.
Both Bills define "counterfeiting" as manufacture, production,
packaging, re-packaging, labelling or making, whether in the country or
elsewhere without the authority of the owner of any intellectual
property right subsisting in the country or elsewhere. Thus, a medicine
which does not have a patent in Uganda (importing country) and India
(exporting country), but has a valid patent in any other part of the
world will be treated as "counterfeit," he says.
The Bill, if enacted, would not only deprive Indian companies of their
export market but also deny the people of Uganda access to safe,
effective, quality and affordable medicines from not only India but also
those supplied under various donor programmes, he added.
Shah had written to the central government, cautioning against Kenya
being followed by other African countries. The Ugandan move shows
industry fears to be valid.
Expressing concern, Amar Lulla, joint managing director, Cipla, said the
move "will put the whole clock back" on "access to medicine" initiatives
in Africa. Cipla is globally known for its efforts to supply AIDS
medicines in Africa at a fraction of the cost of the patented products.
The proposed law also intends to make transit or trans-shipment of
counterfeit goods illegal and allows border measures against such goods.
The Netherlands had recently seized drug consignments of Cipla, Dr
Reddy's and Ind-Swift Laboratories on charges of intellectual property
right infringement. In all these cases, the medicines were in transit to
elsewhere and had no intellectual property protection either in the
country of origin or the destination. The issue had made India (the
origin) and Brazil (destination) voice concerns over such border
measures.
Robert Buizert MSc
Senior Consultant Medicine Regulations, Quality Assurance and Good
Manufacturing Practice
i+solutions
Email : rbuizert@iplussolutions.org
Web: www.iplussolutions.org