The other side of the coin

Last week, this column gave space to Pfizer, one of the parties in a controversial patent case against United Laboratories (Unilab). The subject of this patent war is Atorvastatin Calcium, a highly popular anti-cholesterol medicine marketed by Pfizer as Lipitor and likewise marketed locally by Unilab as Avamax which it retails about 30 percent cheaper than Lipitor.

For those not very familiar with this case, just a few significant developments are in order. First, Unilab filed a case against Pfizer before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) challenging Pfizer’s Philippine patent on Atorvastatin Calcium. This was in July of 2009. At this point, Pfizer’s registered patent from IPO for this drug is still valid and set to expire in 2012, which is why Unilab filed with the same agency a petition for the cancellation of said patent (Philippine Patent No. 29149). As mentioned in my column last week, patents are country-specific, so a corporation has to apply wherever it intends to market.

A few months later, Pfizer and co-plaintiff Warner Lambert Co. LLC filed a petition for preliminary injunction with the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 66 against Unilab, which has already started marketing its Avamax.

On Feb. 8, 2010, the Makati RTC denied Pfizer’s petition because it failed to establish the grounds in support of its petition for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Pfizer has announced that it will file for reconsideration.

These are the basic facts. Now for the interesting details.

Because I had given Pfizer space for its position on this case (see last week’s column), it is only fair that I give equal space to the other protagonist in the case, Unilab.

Unilab’s petition to invalidate Pfizer’s patent according to them, stems from the results of their research which disclosed that this same drug, Atorvastatin Calcium has already been covered by their previous patent No. 26330 which had already expired. At the trial, Pfizer presented their corporate legal counsel as witness. The lady counsel reportedly verified that, indeed, the very same drug was already covered in an expired patent.

Another Pfizer witness is a professor of general and physical chemistry at De La Salle University, likewise allegedly admitted that Atorvastatin Calcium was also covered by US Patent No. 4861893 while a third witness, a senior scientist of Pfizer USA reportedly admitted that “the structure of the compound of Atorvastatin Calcium disclosed in Claim 1 of Patent No. 29149 is the same as the structure already disclosed by Claim 1 of the Patent No. 26330.”

Apparently, some analytical testing was done by experts on both Lipitor and Avamax but the senior scientist was reported to have pronounced the results as unreliable since “3 reports were generated in one test and the Avamax sample tested by her appears to be different from the Avamax sample sent to her by Pfizer”.

In the meantime, the Intellectual Property Office here has not issued a ruling on the petition of Unilab to negate the validity of Patent No. 29149.

If all of the above make your head spin, maybe we should go back to the spirit behind the patent law. It is a property right given to a person for a novel invention. Patent rights have a validity of 20 years under the new law, after which one’s monopoly over it expires and others are allowed to use it.

However, Unilab points out that some corporations sometimes resort to “evergreening” where, with slight modifications to an old invention, they can again apply for a new patent to cover what is basically an old invention. Courts in other countries have started to recognize this scheme as invalid and an unfair business practice and have thus termed the act as “frivolous”, a ground for denying patent applications. Evergreening serves to perpetuate a corporation’s claim over a novel invention, circumventing limitations specified in the law.

According to Unilab, courts in Australia, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea and United Kingdom have declared Patent No. 29149 as invalid.

Unilab further says that in the Philippines, the drug “Atorvastatin was previously patented by Warner-Lambert Company under two patents which were issued prior to Patent No. 29149 and which are now expired. Moreover, it is also covered by the expired parent patent in the United States.”

Now you have both sides aired.

I sit this one out and allow our readers to form their own conclusions based on the data provided to us by both parties involved in the controversy. I limit myself to just providing a venue or the opportunity for them to reach the public via this column.

Peace of mind for local Toyota owners

Toyota is really getting a beating from the American press and the US Congress is also going to town bearing down on them.

We sought out our friends from the Toyota Motor Philippines (TMP) to enlighten us on this huge controversy. Raymond Rodriguez, First Vice President for Vehicle Sales of TMP, and Danny Isla, President of Lexus-Manila were kind enough to shed light on some questions that Toyota owners here (and there are a lot of them!) may have.

Essentially, the problem is with vehicles that are manufactured in the United States. Danny says that one of the two big American suppliers is the culprit actually, but Toyota being the manufacturer had taken the initiative to recall several models aside from the Prius and other high-end Toyota models singled out.

Raymond also said that Toyota addressed the “problem with removable floor mats that could cause the gas pedals to get stuck and lead to unwarranted acceleration.” Toyota also “initiated a voluntary safety campaign on gas pedals of specific US market models such as RAV 4, Corolla, Camry, Matrix, Avalon, Highlander, Tundra and Sequoia as, in rare instances, the accelerator pedals may get stuck and cause unwanted acceleration...” Later on, Toyota announced that they have developed a “field fix” and gas pedal repairs are now in progress in the US market. Toyota is also set to do “voluntary repairs on a separate Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) management program concern of the Prius”. Some customers may feel a slight delay in brake acceleration while driving over certain road conditions. Toyota has already developed a field fix to reprogram the soft ware and this is being done in affected vehicles.

For local Corolla owners, “Corolla sold in the US is a model type exclusive to the North American market. Models outside of North America, including the Philippines are of different body size and weight. Therefore specs such as steering, suspension and tires also differ. Corolla Altis units sold in the Philippines are sourced from Thailand.”

Danny adds that Lexus and Camry owners here need not worry either as these are not affected by the recalls in the US Camry and Altis units are sourced from Thailand while Rav 4 and Lexus units are sourced from Japan.

And lastly, TMP officers state that “they remain committed to the simple but powerful principle that has guided us for 50 years. Toyota will build the highest quality, safest and most reliable automobiles in the world. We apologize for the unnecessary worry this has caused you but rest assured that we always have your safety in mind.”

And we say that after fifty years in the business, Toyota has a spotless track record that they will protect at all costs. You can’t put a good name down.

Mabuhay!!! Be proud to be a Filipino.

For comments: (e-mail) [email protected]