Branded versus Generic Medicines - Cost-Saving and Life-Saving: A Review of the Difference

Abstract

Seven years after Novartis, a global pharmaceutical company filed for a patent for its drug 'glivec' in India (Novartis 2006; Novartis 2012); the application was rejected by the Supreme Court of India under Section 3(d), introduced in April 2005 into the Indian patent law. This decision re-ignited the discussion about several issues:1. Do ‘patents’ obstruct the access of affordable healthcare to patients2. Are ‘patents’ and ‘generics’ adversaries3. Do ‘global pharmaceutical majors’ use ‘patents’ as life-cycle management tools.Medicines called ‘generic medicines’ or ‘generics’ are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as ‘a pharmaceutical product, usually intended to be interchangeable with the innovator product, marketed after the expiry of patent or other exclusivity rights’. This paper aims to address the understanding of patents briefly, and whether court rulings as above promote or mar innovative companies from entering the developing countries/emerging markets like India. The paper is organized into 5 sections. The first section is the summary of the literature search and review from the SSRN.com database. The second section takes up some theoretical considerations for the strategies used by both branded companies and generic manufacturers with examples, an outline of the commonly used terms/acts/laws with respect to generic medicines. The effect of entry of generics into the market and the current generics scenario globally are described in the third section. The fourth section presents a detailed debate about HIV/AIDS and the availability of branded versus generic medications. A discussion of the implications appears in the fifth and final section of the paper.