Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Pfizer IP head says that IP protectionism in India is discouraging foreign investment

Pfizer’s chief IP counsel decries India’s “protectionist intellectual property regime” in testimony before the United States Congress, reports the Financial Times

Speaking at a hearing before the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Roy Waldron of Pfizer argued that India’s intellectual property laws favoured local industries at the expense of international companies. He pointed to the recent revocation of his company’s patent for cancer drug sutent as evidence of an increasingly protectionist IP regime. According to Waldron, the situation has worsened and is discouraging international investment in India.

Waldron also criticised India’s likely increasing use of compulsory licences, even though he claims that Pfizer is “more than willing to discuss viable solutions to increase access to quality medicines”.

Waldron’s comments reflect growing concerns about patent rights in India. Last week, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) upheld the country’s first compulsory licence issued for Bayer's sorafenib. In an interview with Managing IP, IPAB Chairperson Prabha Sridevan defended the board’s decision, calling compulsory licensing a “balanced approach” to protecting the interests of rights holders and the general public.

“Compulsory licences are not a denigration of the owner’s rights,” she argued. “The patent rights are intact until the patent is invalidated.”

The Indian government has indicated that more compulsory licences are almost certainly coming. While the sorafenib compulsory licence was issued under section 84 of the Patent Act, which requires an application from a generic manufacturer, the government itself recently initiated proceedings for three more compulsory licences. The Department of Pharmaceuticals, which initiated the proceedings, relied on section 92, which allows the government to issue compulsory licences in the case of “national emergency or in circumstances of extreme urgency”.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has hired former Anand & Anand partner Swati Sharma and hopes to compete with specialist IP firms
Rapporteur-Judge András Kupecz ruled that education and training weren’t legitimate reasons for a member of the public to access documents
Searches for comparison prior art will be a little easier, but practitioners will have to put more thought into claim construction and design patent titles
The Helsinki local division rejected AIM Sport’s request for a preliminary injunction in a dispute with rival Supponor
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The FTC’s plans to scrutinise improperly listed Orange Book patents could make these listings more important in litigation, but firms should be looking at this anyway
Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton explain how they helped food delivery business Grubhub avoid a preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
European lawyers tell Managing IP how the legal market is reacting to the first few months of the UPC and why cases are set to take off
The ban could be extended or cancelled, depending on whether Judge Pauline Newman cooperates with an investigation, the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit stated
Sources say some China-based lawyers are prepared to take large pay cuts to join stable practices, but most firms are sceptical about new hires