Patents for drug products have come under criticism in recent years. Some arguments say some chemicals patented should not be legally protected; others are concerned that the patenting processing denies access to liver-saving medicines in low-income countries.
As an example, the issue of patents, the cost of medicine, and the practices of pharmaceutical companies recently came to ahead through a challenge about the manufacture and distribution of a pneumococcal vaccine. Here, as Digital Journal reported last month, Médecins Sans Frontières filed a “patent opposition” in India. This is designed to prevent the pharmaceutical company Pfizer from obtaining a patent for a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine called PCV13. The case is based on the active ingredient in the drug not needing patenting.
Like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline has not been immune from charges of profiteering through the control of patents. Slowly, in response to criticism, Glaxo is changing its policy. according to The Financial Times. The company said it will instead alter its approach to intellectual property in a country to reflect its “economic maturity.” This means there will be free generic competition in least-developed countries; at the same time, GSK will seek patents in lower middle-income countries. With the latter, the global corporation will license rights to generic manufacturers for a 10-year period in return for a modest royalty.
Speaking with the BBC, Professor Raymond Hill, who is former President of the British Pharmacological Society, said Glaxo’s plans set a precedent for other major pharmaceutical companies to follow. stating: “This is a brave and positive step towards broadening the access to important new medicines in the developing world.”
In a further conciliatory move, GSK has indicated it plans, in the longer-term, to commit its future portfolio of cancer treatments to patent pooling and will explore the concept with the Medicines Patent Pool. This project currently focuses on HIV, TB and hepatitis C drugs.
