Manila Standard – May 16, 2007

Alvin Capino

First, let it be clear that I have nothing personal against global pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. But the drug firm took a hard-line stance on an issue very close to the heart of every Filipino—affordable quality treatment, especially those against life-threatening ailments, including the deadly hypertension. I am hypertensive myself, and I have to take the side of sufferers like who aspire for wellness within their means. If the giant drug firm is taking a lot of flak as a consequence of its position vis a vis this aspiration, it only has itself to blame.

Now we stand alongside the hypertensives of the world—this time, to celebrate.

The cause for celebration is a major legal setback suffered by Pfizer in the United States which has far-reaching implications all over the world. And this setback is a clear moral victory for the Filipino people.

We refer to a decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the case “Pfizer, Inc. versus Apotex, Inc.” which in effect has declared Pfizer’s patent on the anti-hypertensive treatment amlodipine besylate, known by the brand name Norvasc, invalid and unenforceable.

According to the US Court, Pfizer has already enjoyed the benefit of a 1982 patent on the major component of Norvasc called “amlodipine.” In effect, the court also said that when Pfizer combined “amlodopine” with the salt called “besylate” which when combined resulted into the Norvasc pill, “was nothing more than routine application of a well-known problem-solving strategy.” It did not involve processes which entitled the giant firm to the rights and privileges of a patent-holder.

In layman’s terms, the combination of amlodipine with the besylate salt was not an “invention” which was obtained through experimentation.

Not being a lawyer, I do not know if that US court ruling has a similar effect in the Philippines. But I do know that various cause-oriented groups are already asking the local courts to do the same—declare the “patent” on Norvasc invalid. Let’s wait for the outcome of that legal action.

But at this point, it is safe to say that Filipino hypertensives have won another round in their protracted fight with giant Pfizer. The moral victory is clear and resounding.

The US court ruling against Pfizer’s claimed “patent” on Norvasc brings forth a host of questions and issues that the drug firm will have to face in the Philippines and elsewhere in the world.

First, did the firm unduly profit from the sale of Norvasc since the “patent,” which was the basis of its high market price, has been declared invalid by the US court?

Second, now that its “patent” has been placed under question worldwide following the declaration by the US court, does Pfizer still have a basis for its legal suit against the Philippine government? It will be recalled that Pfizer sued the Philippine International Trading Corp. and its president Obet Pagdanganan after the latter sought to import the cheaper Norvasc version from India. Does Pfizer still have any moral ground to stand on in that legal face-off?

Third, does Pfizer still have a moral basis for its strong opposition to the passage of House Bill 6035, better known as the Affordable Medicine Act which many see as the end of the regime of high medicine costs in the country?

It will be recalled that the bill is slated to be taken up in the plenary session of Congress when it resumes in June after the elections. Readers will also remember that Makati Rep. Teddyboy Locsin called for the expulsion of lobbyists from Pfizer opposing the bill when it was last taken up prior to Congress’ pre-election recess.

Fourth, does Pfizer still have a moral basis for keeping its prices at double the price of the latest option in the market, Amvasc? Readers will remember that Pfizer launched a PR assault against the Amvasc when it was launched in the market late last year until it became clear to hypertension sufferers that this treatment, produced by a Filipino company, is available at approximately 60 percent less than the pricey Norvasc.

Here’s a corollary question: would the millions of hypertension patients who pumped in billions into Pfizer’s coffers on the basis of their good faith in Norvasc’s “patent” get a refund for what could theoretically be “undeserved profits?”

Fifth, will Pfizer’s legal debacle in the US concerning the invalidated Norvasc “patent” finally put an end to the practice of “ever-greening” drug patents?

The practice is seen as a “scourge” among patients who can ill-afford the price of many treatments against life-threatening afflictions. This is perceived as the strategy of winning a patent extension or a new patent by injecting some modification here and there on an existing product.

Legal observers in the country believe the decision on “Pfizer, Inc. versus Apotex, Inc.” may have indirectly but clearly outlined how the practice is done. I hope the indirect exposé would help put an end to the “scourge.”

I do not know how Pfizer would face and answer these issues. There is no doubt that its battery of lawyers will be able to come up with arguments to support its legal stance and public relations requirements. Observers believe there will be a fight to the bitter end.

That, of course, could be prevented. The end-game is in Pfizer’s hands. It can opt to dig in and defend its “patent” and profits. Or it could resort to that rarely tapped resource called “conscience.” That could help diffuse the brewing confrontation between the firm and those who represent and stand for the cause of affordable quality treatment.

Treatment which, to many, spells the difference between life and death.