Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]Code Contextif (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 30771, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health', 'metaDesc' => ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 7 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 30771 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta' $metaKeywords = 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health' $metaDesc = ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $maxBufferLength = (int) 8192 $file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php' $line = (int) 853 $message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]Code Context$response->getStatusCode(),
($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')
));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 30771, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health', 'metaDesc' => ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 7 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 30771 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta' $metaKeywords = 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health' $metaDesc = ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $reasonPhrase = 'OK'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]Code Context$value
), $first);
$first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ea500c5a445-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 30771, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health', 'metaDesc' => ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 7 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 30771 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta' $metaKeywords = 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health' $metaDesc = ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has &ldquo;privately assured&rdquo; the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma&rsquo;s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India&rsquo;s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent &ldquo;more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India&rdquo;, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, &ldquo;Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India&rsquo;s IP environment&rdquo;. He further adds, &ldquo;&hellip;the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before&rdquo;. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for &ldquo;several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime&rdquo; and also notes with approval that &ldquo;(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications&rdquo;. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that &ldquo;the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes&rdquo;. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding &ldquo;private reassurance&rdquo; in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce&rsquo;s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, &ldquo;The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element&rdquo;. He goes on to say, &ldquo;The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States&rdquo;.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR&rsquo;s Special 301 &lsquo;watch list&rsquo; for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a &lsquo;private&rsquo; assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India&rsquo;s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the &lsquo;private assurances&rsquo;. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $cookies = [] $values = [ (int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8' ] $name = 'Content-Type' $first = true $value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 30771, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health', 'metaDesc' => ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 30771, 'title' => 'India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -TheWire.in<br /> <br /> <em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /> </em><br /> In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /> <br /> <em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /> </em><br /> Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /> <br /> That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /> <br /> One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /> <br /> <em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /> </em><br /> A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /> <br /> Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'TheWire.in, 12 March, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-amit-sengupta-4678836', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 4678836, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 7 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 30771 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta' $metaKeywords = 'Access to Healthcare,Access to Medicines,Medicine Prices,generic medicine,generic medicines,patents,Compulsory licence,Public Health' $metaDesc = ' -TheWire.in The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-TheWire.in<br /><br /><em>The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals.<br /></em><br />In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success.<br /><br /><em>Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act<br /></em><br />Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR.<br /><br />That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”.<br /><br />One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act.<br /><br /><em>Why is compulsory licensing important?<br /></em><br />A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these.<br /><br />Please <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/" title="http://thewire.in/2016/03/12/india-assures-the-us-it-will-not-issue-compulsory-licences-on-medicines-24621/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
![]() |
India Assures the US It Will Not Issue Compulsory Licences on Medicines -Amit Sengupta |
-TheWire.in
The government appears bent on decisively abandoning the earlier consensus of adherence to public health goals. In what is widely being hailed as an extraordinary victory for the multinational pharmaceutical industry over the Indian government, the US-India Business Council (USIBC), in its submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), reports that the Indian government has “privately assured” the industry that it would not use compulsory licences (CLs) for commercial purposes. Since it came to power in 2014, it has been speculated that the NDA government is keen to accommodate objections of the USTR and the US based pharmaceutical industry regarding the use and implementation of a number of health safeguards in domestic laws on intellectual property rights designed to promote affordable access to medicines in India. We now have confirmation that the government is willing to travel the extra mile in order to placate the US and that the Big Pharma’s vicious campaign after the first CL was granted in India has been a success. Striking at the heart of India’s Patent Act Mukesh Aghi, president of the USIBC that claims to represent “more than 350 of the largest global companies investing in India”, writes in his submission to the office of the USTR on February 5, 2016, “Overall, the U.S.-India Business Council believes there have been important developments related to the Intellectual Property policy in the last 12 months in India that have paved the way for substantive improvement in India’s IP environment”. He further adds, “…the level and frequency of engagement between the U.S. and Indian governments was encouraging and many have noted that they had not seen this level of engagement with the Government of India before”. Aghi goes on to compliment Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “several public statements reaffirming his commitment to a strong and robust intellectual property regime” and also notes with approval that “(the) Government of India has denied several compulsory license applications”. Particularly disturbing is his assertion that “the Government of India has privately reassured India would not use Compulsory Licenses for commercial purposes”. Curiously, David Hirschmann, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, uses exactly the same phrase regarding “private reassurance” in his submission to the USTR. That these are not isolated reactions becomes clearer when similar sentiments are echoed in the deposition by Patrick Kilbride of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre. Kilbride in his deposition to the USTR on March 1, 2016 notes, “The U.S. and Indian governments have re-opened a formal dialogue through the bilateral Trade Policy Forum, with the creation of an Intellectual Property Working Group as a core element”. He goes on to say, “The election of Indian Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi in 2014 provided an important opportunity to re-establish a collaborative and productive working relationship on intellectual property issues between India and the United States”. One may legitimately ask if it is bad news that the US and India are talking to each other. The issue is not that they are talking but what the substance of their talks indicate. Let us not forget that the US and India are traditional adversaries in the area of IP protection and India has been on the USTR’s Special 301 ‘watch list’ for over a quarter of a century. In such a situation, a ‘private’ assurance that compulsory licences will be denied is abject surrender, not dialogue. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Indian Patents Act are a critical part of India’s attempt to prevent monopolies and assure access to new medicines of public health importance. A compulsory license allows domestic companies to produce cheaper generic versions of drugs under the patent monopoly of MNCs (many of them US based). When CL provisions are used, prices decreases can range from 50% to 97%, resulting in massive cost savings to governments and patients, and a significant increase in the number of patients able to access the medicines. This is the option, embedded in our national law, which is being gifted away by the ‘private assurances’. It is a disingenuous attempt to strike at the very heart of the legislative intent embodied in the Indian Patents Act. Why is compulsory licensing important? A recent study identified 140 patented products being marketed in India. Information about if they were manufactured in India was available for 92 products, but only four of these were manufactured in India and the remaining 88 were being imported. Thus, we see a growing trend of imported drugs forming a significant portion of the domestic market. The table below provides the prices of some of these. Please click here to read more. |