85% of the World's HIV/AIDS Antiretroviral Drugs Made in India

[Chanakya's_Chant]

New HIV infections down by 20% in India: UN

New HIV infections have fallen by 35% and AIDS-related deaths by 41%, while the global response to HIV has averted 30 million new infections​

India has been able to achieve a more than 20% decline in new HIV infections between 2000 and 2014, reversing the spread of the virus, according to a UN report that says the world is on track to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

According to the report titled "How AIDS changed everything - MDG 6: 15 years, 15 lesson of hope from the AIDS response", the world has exceeded the targets contained in the Millennium Development Goals (MGD) to halt and reverse the spread of HIV.

New HIV infections have fallen by 35% and AIDS-related deaths by 41%, while the global response to HIV has averted 30 million new infections and nearly 8 million AIDS-related deaths since 2000, when the MDGs were set said the report that was released in Addis Ababa yesterday by the JointUnited Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

"The measure of success for the United Nations is not what we promise, but what we deliver for those who need us most. When it comes to halting and beginning to reverse the AIDS epidemic, the world has delivered," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said following the report's launch.

Ban said 15 million people on HIV treatment meant that the world was on its way to an AIDS-free generation.

It also means that nearly 75% of all pregnant women living with HIV have access to antiretroviral medicines that improve the quality of their lives and protect their children from HIV, he said.

The report noted that India "literally" changed the course of its national HIV epidemic through the use of strategic information that guided its focus to the locations and population approach.

"This placed communities at the centre of the response through the engagement of non-state actors and centrally managed policy and donor coordination," it said.

HIV treatment coverage for people living with HIV and TB has also increased and in terms of numbers of patients, the largest increases in antiretroviral therapy among people living with both HIV and TB have occurred in India, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia.

India accounts for more than 60% of the Asia Pacific region's people living with HIV-associated TB.

The report noted that currently nearly 85% of the antiretroviral medicines for HIV treatment come from India.

It said the Indian government had also succeeded in preserving the legislative and policy spaces that permit Indian companies that make generic medicines to consolidate their exporting capacities to other developing countries.

Currently, however, India is under pressure from several companies and governments of developed countries to dilute these provisions in free-trade agreements being negotiated with them, it said.

Source:- New HIV infections down by 20% in India: UN | Business Standard News

 

[Viny]

And some people will not buy or allow it in there region saying its Made in India.
India is leading generic drug manufacturer and have been reason for many to get some of the most economical drugs globally.

Glad to see our companies are able to bring smile on someones face.

 

[Echo_419]

New HIV infections down by 20% in India: UN

New HIV infections have fallen by 35% and AIDS-related deaths by 41%, while the global response to HIV has averted 30 million new infections​

India has been able to achieve a more than 20% decline in new HIV infections between 2000 and 2014, reversing the spread of the virus, according to a UN report that says the world is on track to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

According to the report titled "How AIDS changed everything - MDG 6: 15 years, 15 lesson of hope from the AIDS response", the world has exceeded the targets contained in the Millennium Development Goals (MGD) to halt and reverse the spread of HIV.

New HIV infections have fallen by 35% and AIDS-related deaths by 41%, while the global response to HIV has averted 30 million new infections and nearly 8 million AIDS-related deaths since 2000, when the MDGs were set said the report that was released in Addis Ababa yesterday by the JointUnited Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

"The measure of success for the United Nations is not what we promise, but what we deliver for those who need us most. When it comes to halting and beginning to reverse the AIDS epidemic, the world has delivered," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said following the report's launch.

Ban said 15 million people on HIV treatment meant that the world was on its way to an AIDS-free generation.

It also means that nearly 75% of all pregnant women living with HIV have access to antiretroviral medicines that improve the quality of their lives and protect their children from HIV, he said.

The report noted that India "literally" changed the course of its national HIV epidemic through the use of strategic information that guided its focus to the locations and population approach.

"This placed communities at the centre of the response through the engagement of non-state actors and centrally managed policy and donor coordination," it said.

HIV treatment coverage for people living with HIV and TB has also increased and in terms of numbers of patients, the largest increases in antiretroviral therapy among people living with both HIV and TB have occurred in India, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia.

India accounts for more than 60% of the Asia Pacific region's people living with HIV-associated TB.

The report noted that currently nearly 85% of the antiretroviral medicines for HIV treatment come from India.

It said the Indian government had also succeeded in preserving the legislative and policy spaces that permit Indian companies that make generic medicines to consolidate their exporting capacities to other developing countries.

Currently, however, India is under pressure from several companies and governments of developed countries to dilute these provisions in free-trade agreements being negotiated with them, it said.

Source:- New HIV infections down by 20% in India: UN | Business Standard News

Glad to see we have been Abel to make a difference where it really counts

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

 

[syedali73]

Misleading title!

These drugs are only manufactured in India because of cheap labor. All research and development work is done abroad in States and European Universities. Moreover Indian pharmaceutical companies have been involved in patent infringements, literally stealing the years of effort in R&D made by countless scientists working aboard. Interestingly enough, both India government and the judiciary is supporting this theft.

Merck Sues Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Over India Patent Infringement

Merck & Co. are the latest drug company to resort to court action to try and save the intellectual property of two of their patents in India, signalling a tougher stance from an industry under increasing pressure from generic competition.

Coming hot on the heels of a disappointing patent slapdown for Novartis this week, Merck & Co (trading outside the U.S. as Merck Sharp and Dohme), have asked the Delhi High Court to stop Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from marketing generic versions of two of its popular anti-diabetic drugs - Januvia and Janumed. MSD holds patents for both drugs which supposedly last for 20 years. However, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, companies can apply for approval to market a patented medication just four years after its launch.

An MSD spokesperson confirmed that “we have filed a suit in the hon'ble Delhi High Court against Glenmark for patent violation of our drugs Januvia and Janumet. We are disappointed with Glenmark's decision to introduce products that directly infringe upon our intellectual property.” The spokesperson added that “we believe our patents for Januvia and Janumet are valid and enforceable and will vigorously defend them.”

Glenmark is marketing its generic copies of the drugs as Zita and Zita Met, and the company has said that it will price the drugs at a 20% discount in the hope of capturing some of the 3,000 core Indian anti-diabetic market. Glenmark is the third Indian firm to challenge one of Big Pharma’s patents in this way- Bristol Myers-Squibb successfully warded off a challenge from Natco Pharma over its drug Dasatinib, obtaining an injunction from the Delhi High Court. Bayer was less successful as generics firm Cipla was awarded the right to manufacture its kidney cancer drug Nexavar at a largely reduced price. Merck has also had a run-in with Cipla last year, when Cipla successfully challenged a patent for an asthma drug held by Schering Corp. The company, later bought by Merck, had its patent revoked based on its “lacking an inventive feature.” The same reason was given for the Supreme Court’s decision this week to deny Novartis protection for its cancer med Glivec, although Novartis described the medication as a “life-saving, breakthrough drug.”

Both Novartis and MSD have reacted angrily to what they perceive as laxity on the part of the Indian government over guaranteeing intellectual property rights. After a year of patent revocations and following India’s recent propensity to issue compulsory licenses where it thinks a drug is too expensive, some pharma companies are getting desperate. Pfizer recently petitioned the U.S government to use “all available policy tools” to influence the behaviour of the “protectionist” regime. Novartis’s India chairman Ranjit Shahani declared after the Indian Supreme Court’s decision on Glivec that “we strongly believe that original innovation should be recognised in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation, especially for unmet needs." MSD’s spokesperson backed this up, saying that “strong intellectual property protection is essential for growing India's innovative capacity and economic growth. As an innovative pharmaceutical company, protection of our intellectual property is vital to ensuring that we continue to assume the tremendous monetary risks associated with the discovery of innovative medicines.”

India’s Finance Minister Palaniap pan Chidambaram recently attempted to reassure foreign investors, stating that “we are governed by the rule of law. We are a democracy. We have free press...We have a system of law and courts. Any dispute will be resolved through legal suit...that is what makes India not only an attractive destination but a safe destination.” Nevertheless, Big Pharma companies operating in India will be feeling that their patents are anything but safe after this week’s two new developments.

Merck Sues Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Over India Patent Infringement | Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry - EyeforPharma

 

[Ankit Kumar 001]

Misleading title!

These drugs are only manufactured in India because of cheap labor. All research and deve work is done abroad in States and European Universities. Moreover Indian pharmaceutical companies have been involved in patent infringements, literally stealing the years of effort in R&D made by countless scientists working aboard. Interestingly enough, both India government and the judiciary is supporting this theft.

Merck Sues Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Over India Patent Infringement

Merck & Co. are the latest drug company to resort to court action to try and save the intellectual property of two of their patents in India, signalling a tougher stance from an industry under increasing pressure from generic competition.

Coming hot on the heels of a disappointing patent slapdown for Novartis this week, Merck & Co (trading outside the U.S. as Merck Sharp and Dohme), have asked the Delhi High Court to stop Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from marketing generic versions of two of its popular anti-diabetic drugs - Januvia and Janumed. MSD holds patents for both drugs which supposedly last for 20 years. However, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, companies can apply for approval to market a patented medication just four years after its launch.

An MSD spokesperson confirmed that “we have filed a suit in the hon'ble Delhi High Court against Glenmark for patent violation of our drugs Januvia and Janumet. We are disappointed with Glenmark's decision to introduce products that directly infringe upon our intellectual property.” The spokesperson added that “we believe our patents for Januvia and Janumet are valid and enforceable and will vigorously defend them.”

Glenmark is marketing its generic copies of the drugs as Zita and Zita Met, and the company has said that it will price the drugs at a 20% discount in the hope of capturing some of the 3,000 core Indian anti-diabetic market. Glenmark is the third Indian firm to challenge one of Big Pharma’s patents in this way- Bristol Myers-Squibb successfully warded off a challenge from Natco Pharma over its drug Dasatinib, obtaining an injunction from the Delhi High Court. Bayer was less successful as generics firm Cipla was awarded the right to manufacture its kidney cancer drug Nexavar at a largely reduced price. Merck has also had a run-in with Cipla last year, when Cipla successfully challenged a patent for an asthma drug held by Schering Corp. The company, later bought by Merck, had its patent revoked based on its “lacking an inventive feature.” The same reason was given for the Supreme Court’s decision this week to deny Novartis protection for its cancer med Glivec, although Novartis described the medication as a “life-saving, breakthrough drug.”

Both Novartis and MSD have reacted angrily to what they perceive as laxity on the part of the Indian government over guaranteeing intellectual property rights. After a year of patent revocations and following India’s recent propensity to issue compulsory licenses where it thinks a drug is too expensive, some pharma companies are getting desperate. Pfizer recently petitioned the U.S government to use “all available policy tools” to influence the behaviour of the “protectionist” regime. Novartis’s India chairman Ranjit Shahani declared after the Indian Supreme Court’s decision on Glivec that “we strongly believe that original innovation should be recognised in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation, especially for unmet needs." MSD’s spokesperson backed this up, saying that “strong intellectual property protection is essential for growing India's innovative capacity and economic growth. As an innovative pharmaceutical company, protection of our intellectual property is vital to ensuring that we continue to assume the tremendous monetary risks associated with the discovery of innovative medicines.”

India’s Finance Minister Palaniap pan Chidambaram recently attempted to reassure foreign investors, stating that “we are governed by the rule of law. We are a democracy. We have free press...We have a system of law and courts. Any dispute will be resolved through legal suit...that is what makes India not only an attractive destination but a safe destination.” Nevertheless, Big Pharma companies operating in India will be feeling that their patents are anything but safe after this week’s two new developments.

Merck Sues Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Over India Patent Infringement | Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry - EyeforPharma

Hi
Sir cheap labour has nothing to do with cheap medicines. Because its machines and robots working to make those tablets and syrups. It would be costly if manual labour is used.
Cheers
Thanks

Misleading title!

These drugs are only manufactured in India because of cheap labor. All research and deve work is done abroad in States and European Universities. Moreover Indian pharmaceutical companies have been involved in patent infringements, literally stealing the years of effort in R&D made by countless scientists working aboard. Interestingly enough, both India government and the judiciary is supporting this theft.

Merck Sues Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Over India Patent Infringement

Merck & Co. are the latest drug company to resort to court action to try and save the intellectual property of two of their patents in India, signalling a tougher stance from an industry under increasing pressure from generic competition.

Coming hot on the heels of a disappointing patent slapdown for Novartis this week, Merck & Co (trading outside the U.S. as Merck Sharp and Dohme), have asked the Delhi High Court to stop Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from marketing generic versions of two of its popular anti-diabetic drugs - Januvia and Janumed. MSD holds patents for both drugs which supposedly last for 20 years. However, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, companies can apply for approval to market a patented medication just four years after its launch.

An MSD spokesperson confirmed that “we have filed a suit in the hon'ble Delhi High Court against Glenmark for patent violation of our drugs Januvia and Janumet. We are disappointed with Glenmark's decision to introduce products that directly infringe upon our intellectual property.” The spokesperson added that “we believe our patents for Januvia and Janumet are valid and enforceable and will vigorously defend them.”

Glenmark is marketing its generic copies of the drugs as Zita and Zita Met, and the company has said that it will price the drugs at a 20% discount in the hope of capturing some of the 3,000 core Indian anti-diabetic market. Glenmark is the third Indian firm to challenge one of Big Pharma’s patents in this way- Bristol Myers-Squibb successfully warded off a challenge from Natco Pharma over its drug Dasatinib, obtaining an injunction from the Delhi High Court. Bayer was less successful as generics firm Cipla was awarded the right to manufacture its kidney cancer drug Nexavar at a largely reduced price. Merck has also had a run-in with Cipla last year, when Cipla successfully challenged a patent for an asthma drug held by Schering Corp. The company, later bought by Merck, had its patent revoked based on its “lacking an inventive feature.” The same reason was given for the Supreme Court’s decision this week to deny Novartis protection for its cancer med Glivec, although Novartis described the medication as a “life-saving, breakthrough drug.”

Both Novartis and MSD have reacted angrily to what they perceive as laxity on the part of the Indian government over guaranteeing intellectual property rights. After a year of patent revocations and following India’s recent propensity to issue compulsory licenses where it thinks a drug is too expensive, some pharma companies are getting desperate. Pfizer recently petitioned the U.S government to use “all available policy tools” to influence the behaviour of the “protectionist” regime. Novartis’s India chairman Ranjit Shahani declared after the Indian Supreme Court’s decision on Glivec that “we strongly believe that original innovation should be recognised in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation, especially for unmet needs." MSD’s spokesperson backed this up, saying that “strong intellectual property protection is essential for growing India's innovative capacity and economic growth. As an innovative pharmaceutical company, protection of our intellectual property is vital to ensuring that we continue to assume the tremendous monetary risks associated with the discovery of innovative medicines.”

India’s Finance Minister Palaniap pan Chidambaram recently attempted to reassure foreign investors, stating that “we are governed by the rule of law. We are a democracy. We have free press...We have a system of law and courts. Any dispute will be resolved through legal suit...that is what makes India not only an attractive destination but a safe destination.” Nevertheless, Big Pharma companies operating in India will be feeling that their patents are anything but safe after this week’s two new developments.

Merck Sues Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Over India Patent Infringement | Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry - EyeforPharma

Hi
Sir cheap labour has nothing to do with cheap medicines. Because its machines and robots working to make those tablets and syrups. It would be costly if manual labour is used.
Cheers
Thanks

 

[Tridibans]

Misleading title!

These drugs are only manufactured in India because of cheap labor. All research and development work is done abroad in States and European Universities. Moreover Indian pharmaceutical companies have been involved in patent infringements, literally stealing the years of effort in R&D made by countless scientists working aboard.

True. India doesn't have any company of any significant R&D.
Companies like Ranbaxy, Cipla, Sun Pharma etc. are more than 10-15 billion dollars worth (half of Pakistani exports) and their drugs are sold in US with their own patents ... btw with the recent merger of Ranbaxy and Sun Pharma, it is a Pharmaceutical behemoth now...

Dr Reddy's launches generic dementia treatment pills in US - Moneycontrol.com

Some like Dr. Reddy's are growing so fast in US/UK that in next 2-3 years they will be among top 10 pharma co. in the world..

See... I know we are your enemy and all but please refrain from p[posting crap if you dont know anything about it... India is a giant in Pharma and IT.... Our Pharma exports alone are thrice the total exports of Pakistan let alone the IT exports.

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

Misleading title!

Care to explain how is the title misleading when it doesn't say a word about R&D but only manufacturing - as in the UN Report - Comprehension issues?

These drugs are only manufactured in India because of cheap labor. All research and development work is done abroad in States and European Universities. Moreover Indian pharmaceutical companies have been involved in patent infringements, literally stealing the years of effort in R&D made by countless scientists working aboard.

Cheap "labor"? Seriously? These drugs are cost effectively manufactured in India just because of ONE reason that they can't be patented here.

More than 80% of pharmaceutical, pharmachemical, and biotechnological patent applications recorded between 1995–2006 were in just six countries (US, Japan, Germany, France, UK and Switzerland) - You don't base your investment in R&D on one country's market, you base it on the whole global market - In the EU or America or Japan … the law is not going to change. They are safe in these countries, that's where their profits come from, and that profit is protected. If they didn't have protection in those six countries, that's when they would have a point to make. The inability to find new blockbusters has nothing to do with the sales of a couple of drugs in the Indian market.

Patents are designed to reward a person’s or a company’s invention by preventing others from copying and selling a product. That gives the patent holder a monopoly on supply. And pharmaceutical companies work hard to gain and extend such protections.

India’s law sets a higher bar for protection than in some other countries, limiting the ability of companies to get patents for new versions of drugs whose active ingredients were previously known unless they can show significant therapeutic benefit. U.S. and European patent laws more readily grant patents to updated versions regardless of whether they offer major improvements in efficacy over the original compounds.

A frequent complaint was that the US Pharma Industry in 1990's was that the country’s patent office granted monopoly protection too easily for innovations that didn’t represent major advances over existing medicines or known science, a practice known as “evergreening.”

Longer-acting versions of old medicines were given patents, allowing their manufacturers to market them as better than the older versions, whose patents had expired—and whose prices were cheap. The collective effect of a low bar for patents drives up healthcare costs and insurance premiums for patients which is not acceptable in India.

When you weigh the need to stimulate innovation by rewarding it against the imperative of making life-saving inventions accessible to people, India’s approach surely makes sense.

New products aren’t developed in a vacuum, after all. They rely on generations of discoveries to which a whole population - indeed a whole world, is the legitimate heir.

Why India's Generic Medicines Industry is So Important | MSF USA
Pharma companies dominate 2014 list of Indian firms filing for global patents - The Times of India
Antiretroviral Drug Prices | AVERT
Patent wars: has India taken on Big Pharma and won? | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian

Wonder when any of your near or dear ones are dying of cancer - what would they prefer - a $70,000 Gleevec or a $2,500 generic one?

 

[syedali73]

Wake up call for Indian pharma

Unless Indian pharma companies wake up to the new “patent challenge” regime, they could “miss the bus”, opines Dr Gopakumar G Nair, Chief Executive Officer, Gopakumar Nair Associates.

It is time for Indian pharma industries to wake up and take note of the emerging patent litigation scenario in India. Patent litigations in India in past five years or more have taken India closer to US in ex-parte injunctions and duration of individual patent cases pending in High Courts even though India can be proud (?) that we have longest pendencies of patent suits in India. Indian patent law provisions for challenging patents and patent applications have been applauded and appreciated by third world countries and NGOs while MNCs and developed countries have decried and denounced these provisions. After a patent has been granted in India, there have been various options for an “interested person”, to challenge the validity of the patent. Firstly, a post-grant opposition could be filed in the Patent Office within one year of grant. Secondly, a revocation petition could be filed in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) any time after grant, before expiry, of the patent. Thirdly, if anyone is sued for infringement, that person could file a counter claim for invalidation in the High Court. These provisions having been supported by specific sections of the Patents Act (1970), such as Sec. 25(2), Sec.64, Sec.104 and Sec.107, they were being considered parellelly and independently. From June 2014 onwards, this scenario is changing drastically. Unless the pharma industry wakes up to the new “patent challenge” regime, one could “miss the bus” !

Unfortunately, unlike rest of the world, the Indian judiciary appears to be not applying their mind to the “quality” of the patent or the strength and validity of the claims in evaluating “prima facie case” in patent infringement suits, prior to granting “ex parte” injunctions or even hasty grant of injunctions after preliminary hearing. Thereafter, most cases involving infringement suits remain pending for five or more years, even without “framing of issues” leave alone commencement of arguments. Such cases are pending in courts substantially related to pharma patents. Invariably, the sued (defendant) party, files a suit of “counter claim for revocation/invalidation” invariably in all cases. However, after the latest judgement of the Supreme Court in Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra (The Enercon Case) (Civil Appeal No. 6718 OF 2013), this opportunity to file counter claim for revocation will no more be available if the same party has already filed (failed or pending) for revocation either through post-grant opposition or through a revocation petition in IPAB.

Pre-grant opposition: The first and best option

The “first and best option” for pharma competitors is, therefore, timely filing of a pre-grant opposition. Only 1-2 per cent of Indian patent applications are subjected to pre-grant opposition. This is primarily because most pharma companies do not “watch” the details of the pending patent applications in the official website published by the Indian Patent Office, every Friday of the month (www.ipindia.nic.in). It is, henceforth, imperative for Indian pharma to keep watching and taking note of pending patent applications with a view to file pre-grant oppositions after publication in official patent office website and before grant of the patent.

The advantages of filing pre-grant opposition are many. Firstly, this is the cheapest option compared to revocation or challenging invalidity during enforcement proceedings or infringement suits. The cost benefit is almost 1:100. Secondly, not succeeding in a pre-grant opposition does not bar the same opponent from opting for one of the three options for revocation, thereafter. Thirdly, filing a pre-grant opposition reasonably ensures “quality checks” at the patent office, because a pre-grant opponent helps the Patent Controller/Examiner by providing inputs, which may escape the notice of the patent office. In most cases, pre-grant opposition also provides additional “breathing time” for the opponent to plan further strategies till grant of a patent, which is likely to be infringed.

Pre-grant opposition can be filed by “any person”, not necessarily by an interested person. Therefore, it is possible for a third party individual to file the pre-grant. The grounds have to be selected from (a) to (k) under Sec. 25(1).

Supporting evidence such as prior art, product in the market or arguments/affidavit in support should accompany the pre-grant opposition. Since, of late, pre-grant oppositions have also assumed “civil proceedings” format in written submissions, reply statements and rejoinders, it is advisable to involve a professional in-house or external patent attorney while filing pre-grant oppositions.

Success rates in pre-grant oppositions are high in India. This is primarily because only vulnerable and weak patent applications are subject matter of pre-grant filings. Subject to doing the “home work” of evaluating the vulnerability of the invention in the patent application, pre-grant oppositions are the “best-bet” in a patent defense strategy.

Wake up call for Indian pharma – The Financial Express

 

[nForce]

Misleading title!

These drugs are only manufactured in India because of cheap labor. All research and development work is done abroad in States and European Universities. Moreover Indian pharmaceutical companies have been involved in patent infringements, literally stealing the years of effort in R&D made by countless scientists working aboard. Interestingly enough, both India government and the judiciary is supporting this theft.

Are drugs manufactured by hands that labour cost will make an impact ?

 

[syedali73]

India's Lawless War on Intellectual Property

India's assault on patents doesn't just hurt its trading partners. It also hurts India.

By

Holger Krahmer
March 23, 2014 2:53 p.m. ET

The European Union is among India's top trading partners. Commerce between EU nations and India more than doubled between 2003 and 2011 to €79.9 billion, from €28.6 billion; private EU investment flowing into India more than tripled during the same period. Now the European-Indian trade partnership is threatened by a shortsighted crusade against intellectual-property rights launched by Indian officials.

New Delhi has in recent years allowed Indian companies to violate international intellectual-property norms by, among other things, producing generic versions of patented pharmaceuticals developed by European companies. This needs to stop: Violating intellectual-property rights might generate some upfront economic rewards for India but it also corrodes the foundations for long-term prosperity.

After all, intellectual property is the cornerstone of innovation. It creates incentives essential for productive risk-taking. A pop song, a lifesaving drug, an addictive new iPhone game—they're all expensive and risky to produce. Intellectual-property rules such as patents, trademarks and copyrights grant entrepreneurs a temporary market monopoly. In so doing, they guarantee that there's a fair shot at reaping the rewards of successful investments.

There's an obvious temptation for governments to bust patents and trademarks, particularly for developing economies like India's. Officials can just let someone else do the hard work of innovating, steal the most successful ideas and let local firms produce low-cost knockoffs. And that's exactly what India has been doing as of late.

Here's a taste of the abuses. Local officials have unilaterally revoked patents for drugs manufactured by three of the top pharmaceutical companies in the EU—and dozens more for drugs produced in the rest of the Western world. Despite mounting international pressure, New Delhi has refused to pass anti-recording legislation to combat movie piracy. Indian officials continue to deny patent protections to genetically modified crops. And there's weak enforcement of the few unmarred intellectual-property rules still on India's books.

The Global Intellectual Property Center Index now ranks India dead last among 25 major economies in terms of intellectual-property protection, behind its fellow emerging-market rivals in Brazil, Russia and China. New Delhi's anti-intellectual-property maneuvers are brazenly protectionist. The country's commerce minister, Anand Sharma, recently declared his government "committed" to protecting "Indian generics."

India's rampant intellectual-property violations have serious economic effects on the EU. According to a study conducted by the European Patent Office and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, intellectual property-intensive industries support about a third of all EU jobs. They comprise nearly 40% of the EU's total GDP, or €5 trillion. The industry as a whole invests an estimated €30 billion in research and development projects in Europe.

When a major trading partner snaps intellectual-property protections and allows local competitors to freely produce knockoffs, revenues get siphoned away from the original EU innovators, leaving less money to invest in new jobs and growth.

But India's anti-intellectual property strategy doesn't just hurt its trading partners; it also hurts India. Corrupting these protections stifles domestic innovation. Local entrepreneurs are going to shy away from taking new risks. When an Indian innovator's efforts result in a successful product, the government can just swoop in, steal the idea and deprive him of any profit. Likewise, violating intellectual property scares off foreign investors, who will just relocate their money to legal environments more conducive to returns.

Reversing course and supporting common-sense intellectual-property protections would set India on a path to long-term economic progress. Work from the U.S.-based economic advisory firm Sonecon estimates that if India were to adopt and enforce an intellectual-property rights regime comparable to that of America's—the most robust framework in the world—foreign investment flowing into the country would jump by 83% a year.

If India were to establish a robust intellectual-property regime, Sonecon predicts, pharmaceutical investment in the country would jump to more than €55.5 billion by 2020, from about €1.4 currently. That would translate into some 44,000 new Indian jobs over the next half-decade.

India needs to quit trying to gin up short-term gains for local firms by weakening intellectual-property protections. It should instead assimilate global intellectual-property norms and protect the financial incentives that prompt entrepreneurs to develop new products in the first place.

Mr. Krahmer is a German member of the European Parliament.

India's Lawless War on Intellectual Property - WSJ

 

[Ankit Kumar 001]

↑ As an Indian I support our present stance as I can pay for treatment by generic drugs. And that's more important to me and most Indians. Hard work of rich can go down the drain if its stopping the poor to have quality life .

 

[Skull and Bones]

Pharmaceutical can generate 30-40% profit annually for 4-5 years or more. I'm putting most of my funds in Pharma now.

 

[IndoUS]

Pretty cool, more needs to be done to raise awareness regarding HIV and other diseases like TB.

 

[acetophenol]

@syedali73 :- Without those 'Patent infringements' , life saving drugs would've cost several times the present cost, and would've been unaffordable to the masses.