text: Cipla 2011, Harvard Business Case, March 27, 2012 Essay - 1046 Words
  Home Essays Cipla 2011, Harvard...
  Topics: Patent, Developed country, AIDS Pages: 3 (1046 words) Published: February 10, 2013
  1°) Since AIDS was identified in 1982, various entities have been aiming at limiting the expansion of the pandemic. However each of these entities has had a different role and thus different results: * The World Health Organization has had a critical role through the coordination of the different actors involved. It has obtained significant results in terms of treatments coverage in the last few years. Its action has been completed by the UNAIDS recently; * Cipla has developed a unique business model and has made AIDS treatments affordable for almost anyone (1$/day with "Triomune") by focusing on both humanitarian and financial targets (break-even). For example, Cipla has allowed programs like the PEPFAR to provide treatments to millions of people in Africa; * Some governments (South Africa in particular) have decided to modify their nations' patent laws to import and/or manufacture cheap generic drugs. Nelson Mandela has put a huge pressure on MNCs which were accused of focusing too much on profit. This paved way to the introduction of efficient drugs at low price by companies like Cipla in South Africa; * NGOs and non-profits have engaged the fight by lobbying and raising funds. Their efficiency merely depends on their fame and financial means; * Western Governments have invested much in R&D to prevent the pandemic from expanding more and to give their pharmaceutical companies a competitive advantage towards their competitors (R&D is subsidized and patented by western companies which sell medicine at high price); * The "Big pharma" were the 1st to launch efficient medicine against AIDS and thus found potential ways to slow the progression of the pandemic. But they did this to make profit and developing countries' inhabitants couldn't afford their treatments. "Big pharma" could have had a huge impact on AIDS treatment but their focus on profits has limited their efficiency.
  ...trade marks act. CIPLA CASE An issue happened between Roche and Cipla related to IPR. Erlotinib is a lung cancer drug which is patented in 2007 by Roche under the name tarceva but Cipla launched it at a low cost with out any permission. Roche filed case against Cipla as they were manufacturing the drug but Cipla has argued that in the patent (which was taken in 2007) there were no specifications done and it was a derivative of quinazoline which was in their patent and even the drug was of high cost and no modifications were done to the drug in improving its efficacy. Finally Roche lost the case and patent as well. Cipla has faced challenges in India and abroad from multinational pharmaceutical companies looking to protect their patents on particular medications, including antiretroviral drugs used to combat HIV infections in countries like South Africa, where access is severely limited by the annual per-person cost of US$10,000 to US$15,000. Most recently, the Delhi high court awarded Cipla the right to continue selling a low-cost generic equivalent of the lung cancer drug Tarceva following a patent-infringement suit by the drug's manufacturer, Swiss pharmaceutical company Hoffman-LaRoche. Cipla Pharmaceuticals' Yusuf Hamied stated: 'I Am Not Against Patents ... I Am Against Monopolies'...
  ...Cipla v Roche – Generics Industry Rejoices! For the last two years, the Delhi High Court has been the battle ground for a pharmaceutical war between Roche and Cipla over Roche's patent for the anticancer drug 'erlotinib', sold by Roche as 'Tarceva'. On 24 April 2009, the Division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed Roche's appeal against the refusal of a single judge to grant an injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting its generic version of 'erlotinib'. Both Roche and Cipla drugs are based on a compound that goes by the name of 'Erlotinib Hydrochloride'. This case is regarded as a very important case in a series of high profile patent battles between multinational pharmaceutical companies and Indian generic drug companies. Facts of the case Roche, along with Pfizer (as a joint applicant), claimed that it had been granted a patent in February 2007 for 'erlotinib', the molecular [6, 7-bis (2-methoxyethoxy) quinazolin-4yl]-(3-ethynylphenyl) amine hydrochloride. The patented product, which Roche introduced onto the Indian market in 2006, was marketed under the brand name TARCEVA. In December 2007 and January 2008, Indian newspapers reported Cipla's plan to launch a generic version of 'erlotinib', and soon after Roche commenced patent infringement proceedings. In response to Roche's claims, Cipla filed a detailed...