[Ip-health] BRAZIL: Request of Support

Thu Dec 13 12:31:15 2007

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

Dear All,

I am sending you in attach information about a recent action by Brazilian N=
GOs contesting the constitutionality of the Brazilian IP Law regarding pipe=
line patents. At the end of this message you can also find a short release =
about the action.

We would like to ask for your support. We really need international support=
 to convince the General Attorney sent the case to the Federal Supreme Cour=
t in the form of a direct action of unconstitutionality!!!

To help us you can:

-Elaborate a short technical document explaining the incompatibility of pip=
eline patents with the international system and supporting our initiative, =
or

-Elaborate a letter of support addressed to the General Attorney of the Rep=
ublic, Mr. Ant=F3nio Fernando Barros e Silva e Souza.

Please send the documents to us (send it to marcela@conectas.org). We will =
collect and submitt them until the 15th. of January.

We hope you can support us!

Please don=B4t hesitate to contact us if you need further information.

Regards,

Renata Reis
Grupo de Trabalho sobre Propriedade Intelectual - REBRIP
Associa=E7=E3o Brasileira Interdisciplinar de AIDS (ABIA)
Avenida Presidente Vargas, 446/13=BA andar - Rio de Janeiro/RJ
Tel: 21 2223-1040  Fax: 21 2253-8495
http://www.abiaids.org.br

***

Organizations contest the constitutionality of the Brazilian IP Law

 Mechanism for the granting of patents known as "pipeline" patents violates=
 the Federal Constitution
On November 28th, the National Federation of Pharmacists (FENAFAR), on beha=
lf of the Brazilian Network for the Integration of Peoples (Rebrip), presen=
ted to the General Attorney of the Republic, Mr. Ant=F4nio Fernando Barros =
e Silva e Souza, evidence that demonstrates the unconstitutionality of two =
articles of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279/96). According=
 to the authors of the case, articles 230 and 231 of Law no. 9.279, that cr=
eated the patent granting mechanism known as the "pipeline", violate the co=
nstitutional principles that impose the supremacy of society's interest and=
 the pursuit of the country's technological and economic development over i=
ntellectual property protections (art. 5, XXIX). They argue that the granti=
ng of pipeline patents also violates the society's acquired right (art. 5, =
XXXVI); implied due legal process (art. 5, LIV) and the principle of equal =
treatment before the law (art. 5, caput).

The pipeline mechanism is an institution created by the Industrial Property=
 Law that allowed the filling of patents in technological fields that, prio=
r to 1996, had not yet been granted in Brazil. The mechanism made it possib=
le to obtain patent protections for pharmaceutical and food products (among=
 other products). The requests for patents via the pipeline mechanism are o=
nly subject to a formal analysis and they follow the terms of the patent gr=
anted in foreign countries. They are not submitted to a technical evaluatio=
n of the product's ability to meet patentability requirements - novelty, in=
ventiveness and industrial application - conducted by the Brazilian patent =
office, the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI in Portuguese).=
 In total, 1 182 patents were filed under the pipeline mechanism, many of w=
hich are for essential medicines used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and leuk=
emia, for example. Many of the products for which patents had been granted =
through this mechanism were already in public domain prior to 1996.

A study elaborated by economists calculated the hypothetical financial loss=
es caused by the adoption of the pipeline mechanism in the case of governme=
nt purchases of five anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs), during the period 2001-2=
007. The results show that, due to the granting of unmerited patent protect=
ions for these medicines, the Brazilian state paid an additional US$ 420 mi=
llion, when prices paid were compared to the World Health Organisation's mi=
nimum prices, and an extra US$ 519 million, when compared to the minimum pr=
ices of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) for the ARVs.

 In the opinion of Cristina Pimenta, General Coordinator of the Brazilian I=
nterdisciplinary AIDS Organisation (ABIA), the organisation currently coord=
inating the Rebrip's Working Group on Intellectual Property, "instead of co=
ntributing to the development of the country and serving public interest, t=
he pipeline mechanism only serves as an obstacle to universal access and gr=
atuity of treatment for people with HIV/AIDS". FENAFAR's president, C=E9lia=
 Chaves, adds, "no gain has been made by this concession - neither for the =
national pharmaceutical industry and sector, nor for the population in gene=
ral. All were harmed by pipeline patents".

Rebrip and FENAFAR hope to have the current case approved by the General At=
torney of the Republic, so that it will be sent to the Federal Supreme Cour=
t in the form of a direct action of unconstitutionality.

Examples of pipeline patents:

Efavirenz, a medicine for which a compulsory license was recently issued, i=
s protected by a patent granted through the pipeline mechanism. In other wo=
rds, when the patent of this drug was filed in Brazil, it no longer met the=
 novelty requirement, as the information on the invention had already been =
published abroad five years earlier. This active ingredient could have been=
 produced in Brazil, as it was in India.

Other medicines that are fundamental for curbing the HIV/AIDS epidemic, suc=
h as  lopinavir/ritonavir, abacavir, nelfinavir and amprenavir, also were p=
rotected by the pipeline mechanism, and as such, were withdrawn from public=
 domain without any evaluation of its importance in terms of the country's =
interests. Furthermore, the medicine for cancer - imatinib or Glivec (brand=
 name) - was also protected by the pipeline mechanism. This drug, used to t=
reat people living with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, currently costs R$ 10 000=
,000 (ten thousand Brasilian reals) per month, per patient.

Contacts:

Renata Reis (ABIA/GTPI/Rebrip): +55 21 - 9114 1838

Elo=EDsa Machado (Conectas Direitos Humanos): +55 11 - 3884 7440

Zizia (Fenafar): +55 11 - 3259 1191

F=E1tima Mello (Rebrip):+55 21 - 2536  7650

Renata (Fenafar, Press Advisor):+55 11 - 9327 1747

Cl=E1udio Oliveira (ABIA, Press Advisor):+55 21 - 2223 1040 / +55 21 9202 6=
534

***

 Organiza=E7=F5es contestam a constitucionalidade da Lei de Propriedade Ind=
ustrial

Mecanismo para concess=E3o de patentes conhecido como pipeline fere a Const=
itui=E7=E3o Federal

No dia 28 de novembro, a Federa=E7=E3o Nacional de Farmac=EAuticos (FENAFAR=
), em nome da Rede Brasileira Pela Integra=E7=E3o dos Povos (Rebrip) far=E1=
 uma representa=E7=E3o ao Procurador Geral da Rep=FAblica, Sr. Ant=F4nio Fe=
rnando Barros e Silva e Souza, pela inconstitucionalidade de dois artigos d=
a Lei de Propriedade Industrial (Lei 9.279/96). Segundo os autores da repre=
senta=E7=E3o, os artigos 230 e 231 da Lei 9.279/96, que institu=EDram o mec=
anismo de concess=E3o de patentes conhecido como pipeline, ferem os princ=
=EDpios constitucionais de prote=E7=E3o =E0 propriedade intelectual que imp=
=F5em a supremacia do interesse social e a busca do desenvolvimento tecnol=
=F3gico e econ=F4mico do pa=EDs (art. 5=BA, XXIX). Argumentam tamb=E9m que =
a concess=E3o de patentes pipeline  viola a Constitui=E7=E3o Federal ao fer=
ir o direito adquirido da coletividade (art. 5=BA XXXVI); o devido processo=
 legal substantivo (art. 5=BA, LIV) e o princ=EDpio da igualdade de todos p=
erante a lei (art. 5=BA, caput).

O mecanismo pipeline foi criado em 1996 (Lei 9.279/96). Ele permite dep=F3s=
itos de patentes em campos tecnol=F3gicos n=E3o reconhecidos at=E9 ent=E3o,=
 possibilitando a prote=E7=E3o patent=E1ria de produtos farmac=EAuticos e a=
liment=EDcios, entre outros. Os pedidos de patentes pelo mecanismo pipeline=
 est=E3o sujeitos apenas a uma an=E1lise formal e seguem os termos da paten=
te concedida no exterior, n=E3o sendo submetidos a uma an=E1lise t=E9cnica =
dos requisitos de patenteabilidade - novidade, atividade inventiva e aplica=
=E7=E3o industrial - pelo escrit=F3rio de patentes brasileiro, o Instituto =
Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI). Ao todo foram depositadas 1.182 =
patentes pelo mecanismo pipeline, entre elas est=E3o medicamentos important=
es para o tratamento do HIV/AIDS e leucemia, por exemplo.

Um parecer elaborado por economistas e inclu=EDdo na a=E7=E3o dimensiona o =
preju=EDzo hipot=E9tico causado pela ado=E7=E3o do mecanismo pipeline no Br=
asil no caso espec=EDfico das compras governamentais de cinco medicamentos =
antiretrovirais (ARVs) utilizados para combater o v=EDrus da AIDS ocorridas=
 entre 2001 e 2007. Os dados revelam que o Brasil gastou US$ 420 milh=F5es =
(a partir da compara=E7=E3o com os pre=E7os m=EDnimos da Organiza=E7=E3o Mu=
ndial de Sa=FAde - OMS) e US$ 519 milh=F5es (comparando com pre=E7os m=EDni=
mos da organiza=E7=E3o M=E9dicos sem Fronteiras) a mais, apenas com os cinc=
o medicamentos antiretrovirais.

Na opini=E3o de Cristina Pimenta, Coordenadora-Geral da  Associa=E7=E3o Bra=
sileira Interdisciplinar de AIDS (ABIA), organiza=E7=E3o que atualmente coo=
rdena o Grupo de Trabalho em Propriedade Intelectual da Rebrip, "o mecanism=
o pipeline, ao inv=E9s de fomentar o desenvolvimento do pa=EDs e servir ao =
interesse p=FAblico, serve de barreira ao acesso universal e gratuito a tra=
tamentos para pessoas com HIV/AIDS". A Presidente da FENAFAR, C=E9lia Chave=
s, acrescenta: "n=E3o houve nenhum ganho para o Brasil com esta concess=E3o=
, quer para a ind=FAstria e setor farmac=EAutico nacionais, quer para a pop=
ula=E7=E3o em geral. Todos foram prejudicados pelas patentes pipeline".

Pela ineg=E1vel afronta =E0 Constitui=E7=E3o e =E0 sociedade brasileira, a =
Rebrip e a FENAFAR acreditam que a Procuradoria Geral da Rep=FAblica somar=
=E1 for=E7as valiosas na luta pelo acesso a medicamentos no Brasil, encamin=
hando o teor da representa=E7=E3o, na forma de a=E7=E3o direta de inconstit=
ucionalidade, ao Supremo Tribunal Federal.

Exemplos de patentespipeline:

O efavirenz,medicamento recentemente licenciado compulsoriamente, =E9 prote=
gido por umapatente obtida atrav=E9s do mecanismopipeline. Ou seja, quando =
essemedicamento foi depositado no Brasil, ele n=E3o atendia mais ao requisi=
to denovidade (pois a informa=E7=E3o sobre a inven=E7=E3o j=E1 havia sido p=
ublicada no exteriorcinco anos antes). Este princ=EDpio ativo poderia ter s=
ido fabricado no Brasil,como foi feito na =CDndia.

Outrosmedicamentos fundamentais para uma resposta adequada =E0 epidemia de =
HIV/AIDS,como o lopinavir/ritonavir, abacavir, nelfinavir e amprenavir, tam=
b=E9m foramprotegidos pelopipeline, sendoretirados do dom=EDnio p=FAblico s=
em avalia=E7=E3o de sua import=E2ncia para os interessesdo pa=EDs. Al=E9m d=
esses, o medicamento para c=E2ncer - imatinib ou Glivec (nomecomercial) - t=
amb=E9m foi protegido pelopipeline. Esse medicamento, utilizadopara o trata=
mento de pessoas que vivem com Leucemia Miel=F3ide Cr=F4nica, custaatualmen=
te no Brasil R$ 10.000,00 (dez mil reais) por m=EAs, por paciente.

Mais informa=E7=F5es:

Renata Reis (ABIA/GTPI/Rebrip): 21 - 9114 1838

Elo=EDsa Machado (Conectas Direitos Humanos): 11 - 3884 7440

Zizia (Fenafar): 11 - 3259 1191

F=E1tima Mello (Rebrip): 21 - 2536  7650

Renata (Assessoria de imprensa da Fenafar): 11 - 9327 1747

Cl=E1udio Oliveira (Assessoria de imprensa da ABIA): 21 - 2223 1040 / 9202 =
6534

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

_______________________________________________
Rebripcoord mailing list
Rebripcoord@listas2.rits.org.br
http://listas2.rits.org.br/mailman/listinfo/rebripcoord
--
[ Summary_pipelines_versao ingles.doc of type application/msword deleted ]
--