New Delhi: Breaking his silence for the first time over a hotly contested patent lawsuit with Cipla Ltd on cancer drug Tarceva, Girish Telang, managing director of Roche Scientific India Pvt Ltd, the Indian unit of Switzerland-based F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, tries to explain why innovator drug makers are not solely responsible for high medicine prices. A combative Telang insists that innovative companies should be rewarded for their products and notes Tarceva’s price is largely influenced by customs duties and not that much higher than the generic version. Edited excerpts:
Roche has kept a very low public profile in India so far. Why has that been the case?
We are not keeping a low profile. We keep an optimal profile. Roche has been very progressive in announcing what it has done for people and we have got our rewards in that respect. What is the need to speak to media? We are in the media to inform the people about the latest therapies, about new developments in areas we operate. We don’t want to make a story when there is no story.
Tarceva litigation is being touted by several public health experts as a test case in the way courts read patent law after a patent has been granted. Do you agree?
Cautious view: Roche Scientific managing director Girish Telang says the Indian patent law is ‘one of the good laws... What we are facing is not an issue of law but that of enforcement.’ (Photo: Abhijit Bhatlekar/ Mint)
I won’t call it a test because the Indian patent law is very precise and we are all expected to follow it. Roche has followed the law and if our patent has been infringed by a company, we have every right to go to the court. Since the case is sub judice, I won’t like to comment beyond that. However, there is one thing I want to be clear about. Tarceva costs Rs3,200 and that’s because we only give out the drug through our company distributor outlets. We have not sold a single strip for Rs4,500 or Rs4,800 as being quoted in the media. Moreover, the Rs3,200 tag includes 32% customs duty. If you remove this duty and then look at the cost, it is only 15% more than that of the generic version, and I’m sure that much reward the innovator should be allowed to have.
The country has a foolproof, three-tiered scrutiny system where a patent filing is first published and can then be challenged through pre-grant and post-grant oppositions. So, no judicial role is required there. Patent infringement should not be there and if there is any other issue (with the patent), there is the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
We have assistance programmes where we support patients, free of cost. I don’t have numbers but, whenever a patient needs assistance and the doctor requests us, we always provide it. And, it is not just for Tarceva, it is for all our oncology products but, we don’t highlight such efforts.