120 likes | 264 Views
Access to Medicines and IPR Advocacy in China -- Review and initial SWOT discussion. Hu Yuanqiong China Access to Medicines Research Group OSF Seminar Bangkok; 2011.12.13. Context. International MSF launched campaign in 1999 Major players: WHO, Clinton Foundation, TWN, HAI, ITPC…
E N D
Access to Medicines and IPR Advocacy in China-- Review and initial SWOT discussion Hu Yuanqiong China Access to Medicines Research Group OSF Seminar Bangkok; 2011.12.13
Context International MSF launched campaign in 1999 Major players: WHO, Clinton Foundation, TWN, HAI, ITPC… Local groups in developing countries: South Africa, Brazil, India, Thailand… Spotlight: ARV National 2003, Chinese government launched national ARV treatment program, first revealed access issues Major players: INGOs, UN Agencies, local PHA groups Spotlight: ARV (3TC, TDF, EFV, LPV…)
Context • National law in nutshell • Patent law • Started product patent on medicine from 1992 • WTO accession in 2001, no transition time to implement TRIPS • Flexibilities in law: CL, government use, Bolar exception, parallel import… • Patentability: combination, formulation, new form, new use • Opposition/Invalidation: rare between MNC and generic • Drug regulatory • Proxy exclusive rights: administrative protection… • Data exclusivity: 6 years, not in force • Linkage: non-infringement claim, start changing in practice • Fast track registration: ARVs, national emergency
Locating advocacy Justification: why? Evaluation
Justification • TDF: • 2006, more than 5000 Chinese PHA opposition • 2007,TDF and pre-drug patented in China • 2006,Brazilian and Indian PHA opposition • 2008 and 2009,TDF patent rejected in • Brazil and India • Lamivudine: • 1990 process patent, no product patent • thick layers of proxy exclusive protection • HIV formulation no marketing • GSK donation to gov • Supply unstable • 2007 process patent due, GSK warning • 2009 generic registered, no production • 2010 generic invalidation won, 4 months margin • Others…… • All second line ARV patented • Intermediate and API patented? What’s wrong and how to change?
Goal • Sustainable access to affordable, reliable, stable supplied essential medicines • Prioritize health in public policies and laws • Scope of advocacy determined by objective and expertise: ARV
Who is advocating? International in China: MSF CAME Oxfam * TWN WHO Clinton Foundation UNAIDS UNDP UNTheme group – Sub-working group DFID * National: ITPC-China AIDS Care China Ark of Love Mangrove Aizhixing Yirenping China Global Fund Watch Initiative Shanghai Beautiful Life China Access to Medicines Research Group Grass roots PHA groups…
Key messaging • Maximizing patent flexibility in law • Expanding CL grounds • Balancing protection on patent holder and licensee • Utilizing patent flexibility for public health • ARV as potential breakthrough • Feasibility of CL and non-commercial use • Patentability discussion – which is suitable?
Target and Approaches • Target: Government – MOH, MofCom, SIPO, SFDA • Approaches: • Law review, comments • Civil motion to NPC • Ally with academic & gov think tank • Examples: • CL motion • Patent law, CL rules revision comments • MOH submission • Target: MNC • Approaches: • Price Negotiation • Patent opposition • Boycott campaign • Examples: • EFV negotiation with Merk (ACA) • TDF opposition • 2007 Abbott boycott • Crosscutting approaches: • Seminar, workshop (international, national) • Research (joint), translation, information sharing, publication • Network building and maintaining
Evaluation • Raising issue? • Gov increased use of language (CL, public interest…) • Gov – NGO intercourse in law making started shifting • Informal intellectual network set, incl. media ally • Law and policy progress in paper • Setting agenda? • Drug based, issue based • Face-to-face lobby based • Opportunistic, individual • Actual change? • No actual breakthrough in using flexibility • Sensitive to external change? • Little done on new phenomena of FTA, ACTA, IMPACT… • Little done on innovation discussion • All stakeholders engagement? • not enough strategic engagement with generic companies