The LA Times recently published an article, "UCLA’s Efforts to Patent a Costly Patent Cancer Drug in India Hurts the Poor, Critics Say,”
concerning Pfizer’s drug, Xtandi.
Xtandi, which is used to treat prostate cancer, was developed (with U.S.
government funding) and licensed out by University of California, Los
Angeles. Recently, in a royalty
securitization deal, UCLA received more than $500 million in exchange for future
royalty rights from Royalty Pharma.
Notably, UCLA is now seeking patent rights for Xtandi in India, which it
states it has a contractual obligation to do.
The article states:
“What’s special about this case is the fact that the
University of California is going against their own licensing policy by
aggressively seeking a patent in India on this drug,” KEI Director James Love
said.
That policy, as UCLA summarized in a statement to The Times,
is “intended to facilitate all populations having access to medications and
other products and services made possible by UCLA innovation.”
But UCLA also noted the “concerns about prescription drug
pricing” among the activists and others and said it was willing to explore the
problem further.
The school said “we are convening a working group to evaluate
our approach to technology licensing in ways that benefit California, the
nation and the developing world” while also continuing to give drug companies
enough incentive to commercialize its discoveries, just as Medivation did with
Xtandi.
In the meantime, the activists contend that a daily dose of
Xtandi is selling in India for roughly 40 times a person’s daily income in that
nation, which they called “excessive and shamefully unaffordable.”
Notably, the University of California is a signatory to the In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology White Paper. Point 9 of the White Paper
states:
Consider including provisions that address unmet needs, such
as those of neglected patient populations or geographic areas, giving
particular attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and agricultural
technologies for the developing world
Universities have a social compact with society. As educational and research institutions, it
is our responsibility to generate and transmit knowledge, both to our students
and the wider society. We have a specific
and central role in helping to advance knowledge in many fields and to manage
the deployment of resulting innovations for the public benefit. In no field is
the importance of doing so clearer than it is in medicine.
Around the world millions of people are suffering and dying
from preventable or curable diseases.
The failure to prevent or treat disease has many causes. We have a
responsibility to try to alleviate it, including finding a way to share the
fruits of what we learn globally, at sustainable and affordable prices, for the
benefit of the world’s poor. There is an increased awareness that responsible
licensing includes consideration of the needs of people in developing countries
and members of other underserved populations.
The details involved in any agreement provisions attempting
to address this issue are complex and will require expert planning and careful
negotiation. The application will vary
in different contexts. The principle,
however, is simple. Universities should
strive to construct licensing arrangements in ways that ensure that these
underprivileged populations have low- or no-cost access to adequate quantities
of these medical innovations.
We recognize that licensing initiatives cannot solve the
problem by themselves. Licensing
techniques alone, without significant added funding, can, at most, enhance
access to medicines for which there is demand in wealthier countries. Diseases that afflict only the global poor
have long suffered from lack of investment in research and development: the
prospects of profit do not exist to draw commercial development, and public
funding for diseases suffered by those who live far away from nations that can
afford it is difficult to obtain and sustain. Through thoughtful management and
licensing of intellectual property, however, drugs, therapies, and agricultural
technologies developed at universities can at least help to alleviate suffering
from disease or hunger in historically marginalized population groups.
This appears to be another case of a company making a decision based on pricing that will
likely undermine confidence in the patent system, particularly undermining technology transfer from
universities. Universities should exercise care in licensing to ensure that they have the final word on enforcement as well as patenting in other countries (see follow-up patenting noted by Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette). Let’s not kill the "golden
goose." Perhaps UCLA can use part of the
$500 million for a fund for people who need access to the drug in India.
