[Ip-health] Novartis letter to the MEPs requesting them to not sign the Written Declaration. In the Declaration MEPs call Novartis to withdraw the case and call the EU Commission and EU Council to take a similar position

[Alexandra HEUMBER]

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Here below a letter from Novartis addressed to the Members of the European=
=0D
Parliament, faithfully retranscribed. Novartis requests them to not sign=0D
the Written Declaration.=0D
The Written Declaration has been introduced by a group of 5 MEPs (4=0D
different parties). Through this Declaration these MEPs recognise the=0D
crucial role of India as main supplier of generic drugs to which patients=
=0D
in developing countries can have access, and express their support to the=
=0D
Indian Government who implemented the TRIPs agreement in pro-public health=
=0D
way in order to ensure the availability of affordable medicines in=0D
developing countries according to the Doha Declaration. They request=0D
Novartis to withdraw the case and call the EU Commission and EU Council to=
=0D
take a similar position. If the majority of the MEPs signs this=0D
Declaration it will become an European Parliament Resolution.=0D
available at:=0D
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=3D-//EP//NONSGML+WDECL=
+P6-DCL-2007-0022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=3DEN=0D
=0D
=0D
2 March 2007=0D
Dear xxxxx (member of the European parliament)=0D
=0D
=0D
A group of MEPs has tabled a Written Declaration seeking actions from the=
=0D
EU institutions to persuade Novartis to drop its legal action against the=
=0D
Indian Government regarding the patentability of its beakthrough cancer=0D
treatment, Glivec. Their central arguments is that our actions would deny=
=0D
access to medicines to the poor. This is fundamental misunderstanding of=0D
the issue.=0D
=0D
We would like to request you not to sign this Written Declaration  for the=
=0D
following reasons:=0D
=0D
=C2=B7        The legal case does not concern access to medicines. On the=
=0D
contrary, 99% of the Indian patients who take Glivec (circa 6,600 patients=
=0D
in total) receive it from Novartis for free. Worldwide, Novartis is=0D
donating Glivec at no cost to approximately 19,000 patients in 80=0D
countries.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       Our legal action in India does not undermine the provision tha=
t=0D
allow access to medicines. Novartis only challenges those provisions of=0D
Indian Patent Law which are not currently in compliance with international=
=0D
law. Novartis fully supports the TRIPs conditions that promote access to=0D
medicines for developing countries and the Doha declaration.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       Our legal case has no impact on pending patent applications fo=
r=0D
new HIV treatments. Most new HIV treatments are now compounds, thus=0D
falling completely outside the scope of the current dispute.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       The case also concerns the conflicting interests of Indian gen=
eric=0D
manufacturers and the innovative pharmaceutical industry. Indian generic=0D
manufacturers target the middle income populations but not the =C2=B4=E2=80=
=9Dreal=0D
poor=E2=80=9D. In India, the generic version of Glivec costs 4.5 times the =
average=0D
annual income.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       A strong patent law is in the interest of India. One third of=
=0D
pending patent applications for pharmaceuticals comes from Indian=0D
pharmaceutical firms. Indian companies have a strong interest in having=0D
patents for incremental innovations and they have publicly supported our=0D
case.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       Novartis contests strongly that our case undermines the supply=
 of=0D
affordable medicines to the developing world. Indian generic companies=0D
focus on the developed world and India; only 8% of their sales goes to the=
=0D
developing world outside India. By contrast, the innovative pharmaceutical=
=0D
industry treats 716,000 HIV patients in the developing world.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       Novartis is deeply concerned that patients have access to=0D
medicines. In 2006, our access to medicines program reached 33.6 million=0D
patients. Novartis spent USD 755 million last year alone. Public private=0D
partnerships can play an important part. Novartis is committed to explore=
=0D
the issue of access to medicines. But, any solution must be sustainable.=0D
Generics and the demise of the patent system is not a viable solution in=0D
the long term.=0D
=0D
=C2=B7       As the world=E2=80=99s second largest manufacturer of generic =
medicines,=0D
Novartis understands and recognizes the contribution of generics once drug=
=0D
patents expire; our concern is with the non-recognition of intellectual=0D
property rights that ultimately advance pharmaceutical research and=0D
development for better medicines so that patients needs will be met in the=
=0D
future.=0D
=0D
We attach a position paper which explain these issues in more detail.=0D
=0D
Sincerely,=0D
=0D
Meni Styliadou,=0D
Head of European Public Affairs, a.i=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
###################################=0D
SIGN MSF'S 'DROP THE CASE' PETITION=0D
=0D
Millions of people around the world today rely on affordable medicines=0D
produced in India.  Pharmaceutical company Novartis is taking the Indian=0D
government to court to force a change in the country's patent law.  If=0D
Novartis wins, a major source of affordable medicines for millions of=0D
people across the globe could dry up.=0D
=0D
MSF is urging Novartis to DROP THE CASE.=0D
=0D
Find out more and sign up to our petition:=0D
http://www.msf.org/petition_india/international.html=0D
####################################=0D
=0D
=0D
Alexandra Heumber=0D
EU Advocacy Liaison Officer=0D
M=C3=A9decins Sans Fronti=C3=A8res=0D
Access to Essential Medicines Campaign=0D
Rue Dupr=C3=A9, 94. 1090 Brussels=0D
++32 (0) 2 474 75 09 (Dir off)=0D
++ 32 (0) 479 514 900 (Mob)=0D
++ 32 (0) 2 474 75 75 (Fax)=0D
=0D