chapter-4 literature reviewshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/31070/11/11... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER-4
Literature Review
Literature Review
4.1 Pharmaceutical R&D on a growth mode in India
With the product patent regime setting in its final structure from January 2005, the
Indian companies have to develop their own drugs, which calls for significant scaling up
of investment of money, material and manpower in research and development (R&D).
The discovery research also possesses a signiftcant risk of failure and despite this the
R&D has become the basic necessity of the pharmaceutical players to ensure their
foothold in the new product patent era. Fortunately, India has an excellent base in basic
biochemical process expertise, which is a prerequisite for all forms of drug development.
Further, to maintain and improve their competitiveness, the Indian pharmaceutical
players have increased their thrust for R&D, particularly in respect of New Drug
Development (NDD) and New Drug Delivery System (NDDS) shifting from reverse
engineering. Indian pharma companies have already made their presence felt in the global
arena by filling highest number of applications with USFDA in 2003. in fact they have
filed a total of 126 Drug Master Files (DMFs) in 2003, accounting for 20% of all dugs
coming into the US market, which is higher than Spain, Italy, Israel and China. Also the
Indian filing for US patents has witnessed a tremendous growth by reporting 1700 fillings
in 2003 from a mere 183 fillings in 1997.
With increasing importance oflndian R&D, various global companies are looking
for collaborative research with domestic players. In this context, Reliance Life Sciences
is recognized by the US National Institutes of Health for stem-cell research and Biocon's
subsidiary-Syngene International has entered into a contract research agreement with
Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research to carry out research projects to support new
drug discovery and development. Also, the Apollo Group of Hospitals has signed a MoU
with US-based University of Nebraska Medical Centre to conduct stem cell research on
cancer. In fact, Quality, credibility, and reliability and a very reasonable cost
4.2 Barriers and Problems faced by R&D in Pharmaceutical Industry
The emerging economic, trade and intellectual property scenario, nationally and
·internationally, necessitates a qualitative change in the industry, obliging Indian
112
phannaceutical industry to move away from manufacturing only known drugs through
innovative process routes to discovering and commercializing new molecules. The
accumulated knowledge of traditional medicinal system and large bio-diversity of our
country offer great advantage to our country. But at this stage some gaps exist which
become a motive for degrowth of innovation/ research and development. At present most
Indian drug tinns, due to their small size compared to international operators, are not in a
position to invest in a viable new drug development programme.
The barriers faced by R&D in Indian pharmaceutical sector are:
Gap between domestic and international regulatory standards for manufacturing,
import/export and research and development.
Hassles of evaluation and clearance of new drug applications.
Ineffective network of administration of drug standards w.r.t. modernizing,
restructuring and reforming existing system.
Prohibitive cost of drug development.
Lack of innovation
Less success rate.
Among these barriers, experts opine that prohibitive cost, less success rate and
ineffective network of administration of drug standards plays significant role as barriers.
So there is need to find solutions and implement them to be more innovative inclined
sector. However, experts opine that there is a significant unmet need for great efficiencies
in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries from a cost, speed and productivity
perspective. Prohibitive cost of development becomes a main barrier that can be soothed
by creating a library of compounds from where we can selectively pick and choose for
focused development, which will save on both cost and time.
D.S. Brar, former President of Ranbaxy states, "We are looking for a full tax
exemption for I 0 years, only on revenues from royalties and licensing of IP, provided
they are invested in R&D". Such kind of legislative or Government policies could affect
growth of R&D. This statement may boost R&D efforts of Indian companies who have
big share in the market, otherwise it hardly affect small companies.
113
4.3 Study Conducted by Piramal Health Care Limited
Piramal Health Care formerly known as Nicholas Piramal India Limited (NPIL) is
India's second largest Pharmaceutical Healthcare Company is a leader in the Cardio
vascular segment. It has a strong presence in Antibiotics and Respiratory segments, Pain
management, Neuro-psychiatry and Anti-Diabetics segments. The company is also
making forays into Biotechnology in key therapeutic areas for which it has formed
several global alliances. For 2005-06, NPIL's recorded a turnover of Rs 14.1 billion and
profits after tax were Rs 1.7 billion.
An aggressive player in the pharma industry, NPIL came into existence in 1988
when it acquired Nicholas Laboratories from Sara Lee and in the last 15 years grown to
its leadership position through a series of well managed acquisitions, mergers and
alliances. Some of NPIL's major acquisitions include the Indian operations of Roche
Products Ltd., Boehringer Mannheim India Ltd., Hoechst Marrion Roussel Ltd,'s
Research Centre, Rhone Poulenc India Ltd., ICI India Ltd.'s Pharma Division and
Aventis' Reseach facilities.
PHL is the flagship company of the Rs. 2500 crore (US $ 500 million) Piramal
Enterprises (PEL), one of India's largest diversified business houses. The Group is
headed by Mr. Ajay Piramal, who is also the Chairman of NPIL, and among the most
respected names in Indian industry.
Mission
Making a difference to the Quality of Life by reducing the burden of disease.
Vision
To become the most admired pharmaceutical company in India with leadership in market
share, research and profits by:
Building distinctive sales and marketing capabilities
Evolving from licensing to global launch of own patented products
Inculcating a high perfonnance culture
Being the partner of choice
Always adhering to 'our values' based on our obligations as trustees of customers,
employees, shareholders and society
114
We shall pursue world-class standards m our People, Products, Processes,
Partnerships and Performance
Encouraging Innovation and Nurturing Intellectual Capital
4.3.1 Strategic Alliances
PHL has joint ventures and alliances with some of the finest global names in the
industry which include F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Switzerland; Allergan Inc., USA;
UK; Gilead Sciences, USA; Cheissi, Italy; and IV AX Corp; UK
4.3.1. (a) Manufacturing facilities
PHL has two dedicated and one multi purpose manufacturing plants.
PHL's
Hyderabad
site has
unique
features such
as continuous loop chlorination, multi-stage countercurrent liquid liquid extraction,
cryogenic reaction capabilities, temperature profile control in reactors and complete PLC
based operation.
PHL's manufacturing blocks can be configured to take up large scale commercial
manufacture of a number of Bulk APis
4.3.1 (b) Research and Development
PHL has witnessed quantum , .
increase in R&D investment over the last 5
years. A 20000 sq.ft. centralized R&D
facility 'Quest Institute of Life Sciences'
has been created at Mumbai. The CMG is actively
supported by the following R&D groups-
Process Research - focuses on process development,
custom chemical synthesis, analytical method
development & impurity profiling.
Pharma Research- focuses on developing new drug delivery systems.
115
4.3.2 UNDt:RSTANI>ING TilE CURRENT R&D MODEL
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS
PI RAMAL
HEALTHCARE ,,_ /
PHARMA SOLUTIONS
. . ./. . ' ' ~-- ~ ·- ~·-c- ______ , ""-~"""""""''- •• ,..-
I I CMG ~,._;:; .. _;.......;.:rl -~ ....
\1-PDS
MMBB (MARKETABLE MOLECULE & BUILDING BLOCKS):
These are essentially building components for APis or they are off patent molecules
which are in terms of trade sense; these would typically be after patent expiry.
PDS (PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES):
This includes Process Development Services for API and Formulations.
PMS (PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING SERVICES):
This includes commercial-scale Custom Manufacturing contracts for APis and
Fonnulations.
GCC (GLOBAL CRITICAL CARE):
This division deals with the sales of fonnulations across the globe.
CURRENT STATUS OF MMBB DIVISION
The Existing Products
The MMBB division is currently manufacturing the following API:
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
Diltiazem Hydrochloride
!16
Ketoconazole
Verapamil
Mebeverine Hydrochloride
Oxybuytynin
Trazodone
Misoprostol
Cloprostenol
Intermediates for
Diltiazem HCL
Ketoconazole
Verapamil HCL
Assets
The division utilizes two dedicated and one multi purpose manufacturing plants for the
production of API' s. They are:
Digwal: USFDA-approved API facility
Ennore: Intermediates facility
Grangemouth: High-potency APis
SNAPSHOT OF MMBB's POSITION
1 , Branded Fonnulations 45,0%,
2 CMGTotal 46}%
PDS 4,9% PMS 30.2%
MMBB 8.0%
3 Pathlabs 4.2%
4 Others 4.2%
TOTAL 100.0% FY 2007-2008 Annual Results
31-1\'laNJS 31-Mar-IJ7,c,
12,913,5 11,564,6
13,410,5 11,275,1
1,412.2 1,458,6 8,668A 6,648,4
2,293.6 (109cr) 2,266.1
1,194,0 695,0
1,210,6 1,184,6
728.5 719.3
Source.' ll1111'.nicholaspiramal. com (All Figures are in Rs. Min)
117
1L7%
18.90%
-3 20% 3040%
1.20%
71BO%
2.20%
16.20%
The annual results for the tinancial year 2007-2008 shows that MMBB division
has a low growth not only in terms of its top line but also its bottom line does not seem to
grow . Though the CMG business comprises of 50% of the company's revenues but
MMBB does not contribute major share in it. The division has proved its potential by
moving from an intermediate supplier to an end API manufacturer. The division has also
managed to be a global leader for few of the APis.
4.3.3 STUDY OF API MARKET DYNAMICS
The world demand for APis is forecast to increase at an average yearly rate of
8.2% over the next 5 years reaching a value of $46bn by 2010. With sales of $2bn in
2005, the Indian API manufacturing industry is the 3rd largest in the world and is
expected to make sales of $4.8bn by 2010, an average yearly growth rate of 19.3%.
India's API export growth rates are the highest in the world. India is the top country in
DMF submissions and has the largest number of US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved plants on a worldwide scale.
(Source: Hindu Business line & IMS)
Amongst API manufacturers, the trend is to graduate from less regulated markets
to higher value, regulated markets in Europe and North America. Within the global API
market space, India along with China is expected to emerge as the key source for patent
API's. This is depicted as below:-
60
30
25
20
15
'"
lndia's share in global merchant API Market
Global Market
USD 31 bn
CAGR: 8.2% Global Market
USD46 bn
lndia,2 r.L. [. /GR:19% l lndia,4.S
I Othe<s, 29
t I
Other-s, 41.2
0+-----~~----~----~----~~--~----, 2005 6.5% 2010
118
Merchant API Projections- 2010
11 Generics
a Innovator
MARKET SIZE = US $ 46 bn
Demand for generic AP!s is expected to be faster (II % CAGR) than that for
innovator AP!s (6 % CAGR), by 2010. (Source: Chemical Pharmaceutical Generic
Association, CPA)
US Dl\IF Filings- An Indian View (Source: IMS)
To make MMBB a Rs. 1000 crore division keeping in mind the ''non- compete
with i1movators" strategy of CMG (Custom manufacturing group).
4.3.3 (a) CMG AND ITS "NON-CO:\IPETE WITH INNOVATORS" STRATEGY
The CMG desires to be the partner of choice for international phannacos and in
line with this objective, the group has critically evaluated the avenues within the drug life
119
cycle where it can add value for its customers NPlL will offer phannacos products and
services spanning across Custom Chemical Synthesis of kilo scale APis to bulk APis
extending further to phannaceutical finished dosage fonns.
PHL will not support generics companies in "first to file and early to market"
opportunities as these are based on challenging the innovator's IPR.
NPIL's strategy is to be the partner of choice for international pharmacos
NPIL part11er with lnnov:~tor eomp:~nles :~cross th-e fife cycle & ~Iter p:~tent -expiry
IV. MMBB division has limited product range compared to similar other companies in
this business.
Few products of significant value such as Amiodarone & Trazadone have been
introduced for the last 3 years.
Compared to the other divisions within phannaceutical solutions the growth rate
& profitability ofthe MMBB has been lower.
In last 2 years, MMBB has demonstrated successfully the reach & marketing
capabilities by cross selling products like Misoprostol & Cloprostenol.
The business has turned around since & has moved from an intennediate supplier to API
supplier.
4.3.3 (b) KEY CHALLENGES FOR MMBB BUSINESS
It takes 18- 24 months to secure sales to a customer in regulated market.
Gaining Market Share at the expense of others is possible only if you have a significant
cost advantage. Time to market should be minimal especially in less regulated markets.
120
COMPETITION
Competition from Indian manufacturers with similar cost structure. Technology
needs to be a key differentiator and (or) differentiated manufacturing process or
significant capacity leverage is critical.
IMPLICATIONS
'Less regulated' markets will remain important in the early phase of the product
& they will help benchmark cost competitiveness.
Key driver for competition will remain cost.
Need to leverage technology capabilities & differentiated manufacturing strategy
to gain competitive advantage in existing I new products.
4.3.3 (c) SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE MMBB DIVISION
I. STRENGTHS
Customer Relations
Strong Relationship spanning over 6 - 8 yrs with Global Generic players like
Teva, Sanofi, Sandoz in regulated markets- Thus PHL has not only been an intermediate
supplier but over the last 3 years has moved up the value chain to also be a finished API
supplier.
Strong Relationship with local generic players like Prati (Brazil), Group
California (Memphis) (Columbia), Kimia Pharma (Indonesia), Laproff (Columbia), EMS
(Brazil), Lab Fabra (Argentina), Northern Start (Russia), MPI Phama BV (Russia),
Protek (Russia) - PHL can thus escape European middlemen and directly supply to the
generic players and hence derive better realization for its products.
Marketing & Distribution
Extensive reach to end users in markets like Russia (4 end users), South America
(18 end users) especially Brazil, Mexico and Columbia- Thus PHL has assured channel
available to sell and don't have to rely on traders. Efficient sales and marketing- Thus
in-spite of PHL manufacturing only 9 AP!s, it is ranked amongst the top 3 global players
in 4 of these molecules. Strong Distribution/ Agent network across the globe covering 46
countries have made PHL global leader in 4 of its molecules.
121
Facilities
2 USFDA approved API facilities that can handle multiple reaction capabilities
like Acetylation, Halogenation, Aldol Condensation, Cyanation, Darzen's Condensation,
Friedel - Crafts reaction, Loop Chlorination, Sandmeyer reaction, Trans - esterification,
Catalytic Hydrogenation, Grignards reaction, Liquid Ammonia reactions, Optical
Resolution, Oxidation, Bio-catalysis, Fennentation, N-butyl Lithium, Chiral Synthesis.
State-of-the-art R&D facility at Goregoan (Piramal Life Sciences) and UK (Avecia
Research Centre) - This has ensured that PHL constantly works on improving process
yields, routes and costing so that it achieves its goal of becoming the global leader in the
AP!s it manufacturers.
Products
Handling high volume products like Diltiazem (200tons), Ketoconazole ( 80tons)
as well as niche products like Cloprostenol (3 kgs, ), Misoprostol ( 300kgs)
Manufacturing
Continuous innovation and improvement in processes and capacities over a long
period of time has ensured that PHL remains one of the most cost competitive
manufacturers - Thus PHL is able to drive away competition for a long time.
II. WEAKNESS
Products
Absence of a sustainable model to chum out new molecules has led to limited
product range compared to typical API manufacturers - Thus PHL is neither able to
leverage its relationships with key accounts nor is it able to exploit its reach to markets
like Russia and South America. [Not only that these markets are large consumers, also
it's not easy to enter these markets, for example Russia has strict registrations, South
American market does business on long credit period.
PHL's poor focus on the API business segment, and no significant efforts to build
a robust pipeline of new molecules. In the past products like Ipratropium Bromide and Co
Enzyme Q l 0 have been developed but not commercialized. In recent times with the
turnaround of this business 2 molecules viz Amiodarone and Trazadonc have been
commercialized.
122
Assets
Compared to other phannaccutical companies, PHL as yet, doesn't have a
manufacturing "asset" capability in China - This poses a threat because China is
becoming a low cost hub because of locally availability of chemicals and intennediates,
low cost of utilities and excellent infrastructure.
Insufficient asset availability - All the manufacturing blocks at Digwal are
currently either running full capacity or have been blocked for a possible future contract
from Innovator - Thus introduction of any new molecule will need additional investment
and/or PHL will need to manufacture at the cost of existing products or look free assets
that have yet to get commercial contracts from the CMG business For eg: To manufacture
Amioradarone, PHL needs to cut production of Ketoconazole.
Regulatory
PHL' s regulatory department had until few years given less priority to studying
new molecules that were to go off patent, and MMBB's low expertise in volume handling
led to PHL being slow in Regulatory filings like USDMF and ECOS compared to other
Indian players in the API industry like Cadila, Divis. Thus delaying its launch in
regulated markets. V erapamil is a classic example of this.
Ill. OPPORTUNITIES
Growing Market Size
API Industry globally valued at USD 46 billion by 20 I 0. (Source: KPMG)
Japan is going generic from the year 2009, and PHL's relation with Tanabe, Yoshando,
Essi puts PHL in a position to leverage the opportunity.
Reducing Competition
API manufacturing moving from Europe to low cost destination like India and
China - Thus PHL can gain market share against European suppliers. It can enter AP!s
where competition is mainly from Europe. Increasingly markets like Brazil, Mexico and
Columbia are moving from semi-regulated to regulated markets hence competition from
small and medium players will be limited.
123
THREATS
Competition
China is moving from servicing non-regulated market to also servicing regulated
market (Source: Dr. Reddys Laboratories presentation) - This will likely impact pricing
in these markets. Today the differential in pricing in ROW and US I EU is considerable
which over a period may comedown.
Costs
Intense competition in the US generic market, increase in cost of labour in India
and rising crude oil prices are leading to cost pressures on APis. The industry is also
witnessing depressed Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) prices. These factors are
putting pressure on operating margins of major Indian API companies.
4.4 STUDY OF PHL/ D!VI'S LABORATORIES LTD.
PARAMETERS COMPARED
Competencies
/ Markets & Revenues
\ Product Range
-----""--------~----··--
124
"'\ Manufacturing
Capabilities
I
) Technological
Capabilities
4.5 PilL & DIVI'S COMPETENCIES
- Independent API manufacturer with specialty and multipurpose manufacturing
capacities (totally integrated manufacturing from basic raw material stage.
- No conflict business role with innovator/generic player
- No patent violation
- Cost competitiveness (cost efficient manufacturing
- Capability to conduct complex chemical reactions
- Reach to world markets significantly
PHL & Divi's have a strategy of respecting patent laws and have positioned
themselves as an IPR adherent by not tying up with any Para IV Challenger
MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES (WITH RESPECT TO API ONLY)
~ocation
:ertifications
Hyderabad, Vishakapatnam Hyderabad, Grangemouth(UK)
Both plants are certified with Hyderabad Plant has follow
current good manufacturing certifications:-
practices (cGMP) guidelines, cGMP facility; USFDA
certified with (ISO) 9001 approved with no 483s -both in
(Quality Management 2002 and 2005
systems), ISOI4001 Approved by TGA, Australia,
(Environment Management ISO 900 I & ISO 1400 I certified
Systems), OHSAS 18001
(Occupational Health and Grangemouth Plant 1s USFDA
Safety Systems) and USFDA approved.
approved.
125
Other Certifications:
WHO
MCA
European and Canadian Drug
Authorities approvals
TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES
Ill Tech Capabilities at Divis's Laboratories:
~~~tyl~TI!?!l, ~rie~~Tilli:~¢mffs ~B-~.?SJ12ii, Acylation, Halide Exchange, Alcoholysis,
rfal~gel}li!f9i1, Alkoxylation, Hoffmann Reaction, Alkylation, Hydroformylation,
Amidation, im~i}1\'f!5!J, Amination, Hydroxylation, Bromination, Isomerisation,
Carbomethylation, Mannich Reaction, Carboxylation, Mehylation with Dimethyl
Sufate, ~~jr~ihili$1~, Methylation with Methyl Halide, Chloromethylation, Nitration,
Chlorination , Organometallic Reaction, Condensation, mt<fa!!!~ll[~~l ~,)!!!Jii~~,
Peptide Synthesis, Cyclization, Phosgenation, Dealkylation, Phosphorylation,
Decarboxylation, Dehalogenation, Reduction (Various),
Dehydrogenation, Saponification, Diazotization, Tosylation, Diels - Alder Reaction,
l;,~i!i~m!@ltlafb11. Epoxidation, Vilsmeier Reaction, Esterification, Vinylation,
Ei\1!ar~4ii11. Handling Capability of Hazardous Chemicals:
1,3-Butadien gas, Nitromethane, Chromium trioxide, n-Hexyllithium, Diethyl
aluminium chloride (1.8 Min toluene),mmrm111!1i1!J, Dilsobutyl aluminium hydride (25
% in toluene), Oleum, Ethylene oxide gas, Potassium cyanide, Hydrazine hydrate,
Potassium metal, Lithium aluminium hydride (2.3 M in THF), Potassium tert.butoxide,
Lithium amide, Raney Nickel, Liquid Bromine Sodium amide, Lithium isopropoxide,
Sodium azide, Lithium tritert butoxy aluminium hydride (I M in THF), Sodium metal,
Lithium metal, Sodium cyanide, Lithium methoxide, Sodium tritert butoxide, Methyl
lithium-lithium bromide complex (1.5 Min diethyl ether), Sodium borohydride, Methyl
lithium-lithium iodide complex (1.5 Min diethyl ether),Triphosgene, Mercury oxide
Capabilities with PHL
PHL has the infrastructure and technical manpower to routinely carry out a
number of hazardous reactions. A sample of its reaction capabilities is as follows
Acetylation, Halogem1tioii, Aldol Condensation, Cyanatioil, Darzen's Condensation,
Friedel - Cra!lS:;:eactioil, Loop Chlorination, Sandmeyer reaction, Trm1s ..:_-esterification,
(atalytic i:fyqrogetlatiQrL On~1ar{fs reactiOn, J:."iquirA:111moiiia rcactloi~. Optical
Resolution, PxL<J.atiQU, Bio-catalysis, Fermentation, N~_i,!t)'lL\ij!Iunl ~J!ir!l(S)'!1ihcsll
126
As a part of its strategy, PHL is constantly developing new processes and scaling them up
to commercial level. PHL is committed to investing in infrastructure required for specific
reactions I technologies involved in products and processes of its customers.
Note: Marked in green are capabilities common in PHL and Divis Laboratories Ltd.
PRODUCT RANGE
API
CARBIDOPA
DESLORTADINE
DEXTROMETHORPHAN HBr
GABAPENTIN
IOPAMIDOL
LEVETIRACET AM
LEVODOPA
LORATADINE
NAPROXEN
NAPROXEN SODIUM
NIACIN
PHENYLEPHRINE HCI
RISEDRONATE SODIUM
Sibutramine HCl Monohydrate
T AMSULOSIN HCl
TRlPOLIDINE HCl
YERAPAMIL
ZOLPIDEM TARTRATE
MEBEVERINE
OXYBUTYNIN
TRAZODONE
MISOPROSTOL
CLOPROSTINOL
AMIODARONE
Ibuprofen
Itraconazole
Note: Marked in green are products common to PHL & Divis Laboratories Ltd.
127
MARKETS & REVENUES (FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/03/2007)
PHL (MMBB) 109 1% Key markets for MMBB :
(12 mths South America- 35-40%
EU - 25-28% (05-06 data by
sales team)
ending
Mar 2007)
Divi's Labs 181 35% The company derives 90% of
its business from exports, to a
large extent (73%) from US
(12 mths
ending
Mar2007) and Europe regions. The finn exports its products
to more
(in Rs. Mn- Source: www.myiris.com)
VII. CONCLUSION
than 25 countries including
France, Germany, Italy, South America, Spain,
Switzerland,
UK, US and Far East countries. (Data as of 2005-
06- Source: Initiating Coverage Report,
Karvy Stock Braking Limited)
Since PHL's & Divi's asset capabilities are similar, and assummg that the
molecules we aim to target are similar in number to Divi's, and also assuming that the
cost structure to PHL with respect to the short-listed molecules would be same as to
Divi's, we suggest to benchmark Divi's profitability as minimum aspiration.
From benchmarking PHL's utilization of its available manufacturing capabilities
vis-a-vis Divi's Laboratories, while keeping in mind the above assumptions, it can be
concluded that PHL is not maximizing the utilization of its available capabilities.
Keeping in mind the above assumptions, PHL is considering manufacturing new
molecules thereby taking advantage of the growing API market and India becoming the
hub of Phannaceutical outsourcing.
128
4.6 Stages of New Products Introduction
• Selection of • Preliminary • Detailed assessment • R&D probables from a research conducted of finalized molecules. • Process given laundry list of on the shortlist & • Analysis of assets Development molecules. further refinement of and production • Production • Probabfeseliminated the fist carried out on capacities. · • Commercialization on the basis of: the basis of: • Strategy for ·Capability -Value production of ·Chemistry -Volume .molecules.
- T •. Category • Reje~ted laundry List ~ Meeting with R&D
No. of molecules= 37
4.6 (A) METHODOLOGY
The MMBB division has divided the entire new product development process into 4
stages as under:
STAGE 1
A list of about 87 molecules is selected. The molecules and their varied chemistries
required for their manufacture is studied.
On the basis of the capability of PHC and the chemistry required for the manufacture of
the molecules, the first shortlist of 37 molecules is obtained.
STAGE 2
The shortlist obtained after preliminary research is subjected to further analysis. The
further refinement of this list is carried out on the basis of the therapeutic category of the
molecules and the value and volume measures of the molecules. In this stage, the
different manufacturers of the molecules are analyzed and some of them are identified for
benchmarking. After due analysis, the final shortlist of 24 molecules is obtained.
129
STAG£3
The final shortlist contains molecules which are probable volume builders and
blockbusters. The year wise revenue projections of these molecules are calculated and
appropriate strategies for their production is proposed after thorough analysis.
STAG£4
Further R & D, process development, production and commercialization of these
molecules is carried out by the MMBB division.
4.6 (B) MOLECULES REJECTED & REASONS
In the course of short-listing the molecules, many molecules are rejected. The reasons for
the same are many. In the 1 '' stage, the molecules are rejected because of the special
capabilities required in their handling that are not possessed by PHL. Also some of the
molecules are unstable and required hazardous chemistry for their handling. As we
progressed to the next stage of short listing, the molecules are eliminated on grounds of
their low market prices (our bottom limit being US$ 40/Kg) as well as their low volumes.
Many molecules are also transferred to a wish list, primarily as their patent expiry date is
found to be far away and that it was too early to determine how the molecule would
behave in the market at that point in time. Hence these molecules could be considered at
a later date but not rejected wholly. Some of the molecules eliminated from the final
shortlist include, Alendronate Sodium, Cabergoline etc. Similarly, some of the molecules
that are transferred to the wish list include Metaxalone, Donepezil, Hydralazine etc.
4.6 (C) MOLECULES ACCEPTED & REASONS
The molecules are short listed after a rigorous study. As explained above, the
molecules are short listed in 2 stages from the laundry list of molecules. The molecules in
the preliminary list arc selected on the basis of their therapeutic category and their
relatively simpler chemistries as against other molecules. The molecules in the final
shortlist arc selected after duly analyzing their market prices, values obtained and
volumes obtained in the given time frame. Some of the accepted molecules include the
Prostaglindins, Sartans basket, Carvedilol, Clopidogrel, Venlafaxine, Amlodipinc,
Natcginide, lsosorbide Mononitrate etc.
130
4.6 (D) BRIEF DESCRIPTION & LAUNCH STRATEGY FOR NEW MOLECULES
CLOPIDOGREL
Plavix (clopidogrel bisulfate) is indicated for the reduction of atherothrombotic events as
follows:
Recent MI, Recent Stroke or Established Peripheral Arterial Disease
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Clopidogrel Blood
Inhibitor
Clotting Sanofi
Aventis
Plavix Aug 2009 USA:
COMPETITION
In India
There are 70
manufacturers in India, of
which 10 are DMF
These holders.
holders
Pharrnalabs,
are
DMF
Arch
Cadila
/
70 ~/
60
50
40
30
20
/'-------------- --- , _____ _
10 '
o/-~~~--=~r-~=--,·
India China Rest
Healthcare, Cipla, Dr. Reddy's laboratories, Hetero Drugs, Ind-Swift
Labs, !pea, Lee Pharrna, MSN.
450/kg
ROW: US$
170/kg
a ClOPIDOGREL No. of Non DMFHolders
• ClOPJDOGREL No. of DMF Holders
The non-DMF holders include companies like Aarti, Amoli Organics, Aurobindo
Plwrma, Bal Pharma, Calyx, Dishman, Glenmark Generics, Glowchem, Hermes,
Hiran Organochem, Hy-Gro, Jubilant Organosys, Kopran, Kopalle Plzarmchem,
Afatrix, Neo, Neulam/ etc.
In China
There are 15 manufacturers in China. None of them are DMF holders.
:'IL\,JOR CUSTO~IERS
The major customers of Clopidogrel include the following:
Sanofi Aventis, Apotex and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories.
131
ASSUMPTIONS
Current Market Price
ROW 40% dip 20% dip 15% dip Stable
The prices for the years 2006 to 2008 have been taken as stable.
Stable
Also ROW is a realistic benchmark for the lowest possible price that a molecule can
realize.
Volume
From the year of off- patent i.e. 2009, the volume rise in the USIEU market is 7% while
in the ROW is 4%.
The volumes for the years 2006 to 2008 have been increased at a constant CAGR.
PHL Volume Market Share
US/EU 5% 10% 15% 20%
ROW 10% 20% 30% 30% 30%
PHL's MARKET SHARE IN REVENUE & VOLUME VIS-A-VIS GLOBAL REVENUE &
VOLUME
PHL share- ROW 0 9.99 20.79 32.43 33.73 35.07
Global Volume 495.04 526.69 560.44 596.43 634.81 675.74
j '" .. : ;j:i"{: .· ' !n>c:~JJI).' ,y,,.,l.H \'ti J: )•. JJ,I• ~ h_- ~~f ( ,-_ -";#. r·\·;{W" Jf.<-)o:~~tl:~.• ;'.'-:I; '- • - .r ~% ~ -:!. ~,.'
•' ....
PilL share- US/EU 0 0 19.62 41.99 67.39 96.15
PHL share- ROW 0 3.87 6.45 8.55 8.89 9.24
Global Revenue 538.60 486.70 466.01 497.73 531.64 567.88
132
4.6 (E) STRATEGY
This API targets a very specific category- anti-thrombotic (blood clotting inhibitor).
Clopidogrel shows all the indications of becoming a volume builder or a probable
blockbuster. It is the leading molecule in its therapeutic category with a constant growth
rate of 8% YOY (Source: IMS 360, 2007 report).
A multi-stage intennediate process precedes the final API. An N-1 strategy would be
most cost-effective for the company.
The company Mediking Pharmaceuticals in China could be approached for procuring
the intermediates for Clopidogrel.
2. Venlafaxine
Effexor (venlafaxine hydrochloride) is indicated for the treatment of major depressive
disorder. A major depressive episode implies a prominent and relatively persistent
depressed or dysphoric mood that usually interferes with daily functioning (nearly every
day for at least 2 weeks).
Venlafaxine Anti-Depressant Wyeth
Pharms Inc.
COMPETITION
In India
There are 21 manufacturers in
India, of which 8 are DMF
holders
IS·
10•
5 -
a •
Effexor Dec
2007
-------~ D - [.]-
The DMF holders are India Chma Rest
Alembic, Cadi Ia
USA: US$
450/kg
ROW: US$
150/kg
• VENLAFAXINE No of Non
DMFHolders
•VENLAFAXINENo. of DMF Holders
Healthcare, Cadila Phanna, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ind-Swift Labs, Lupin,
Matrix, Torrent.
133
The non-DMF holders include companies like 3A Chemie, Aarti, Amoli
Organics, Dishman, Hermes, Hetero, Lee Phanna, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Sun
Phanna, Ultratech.
In China
There are 3 manufacturers in China. 1 of them is a DMF holder- Chongqing Carelife
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd
MAJOR CUSTOMERS
The major customers of Venlafaxine include the following:
Caraco, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Pliva Hrvatska Doo, Osmotica, Sandoz, Teva,
Wyeth Pharms, Zydus Pharms
ASSUMPTIONS
Current Market Price
ROW 40% dip 20% dip Stable Stable
The prices for the years 2006 to 2007 have been taken as stable. The molecule went off
patent in December 2007 and the prices have reduced from 2008 to 2010 in the US/EU
markets and until2011 for the ROW markets.
Also ROW is a realistic benchmark for the lowest possible price that a molecule can
realize.
Volume
The volumes for the years 2006 to 2008 have increased at the current CAGR.
The volume rise from 2009 in the US/EU market is 7% while in the ROW is 4%.
PHL Volume Market Share
·' ~;;·, •c{i[il!' H'~' ~~I) II ~ f'\:.,·-t!)l~ q\\ -~-,
j['\",''~.{(t;; I~'\~ -;"~-fJ f'' :_ ... ~~_u ~~j
' ~ u ~-
US/EU 0 0 5% 10% 15% 20%
ROW 10% 20% 30% 30% 30% 30%
134
PHL's MARKET SIIARE IN REVENUE & VOLUME VIS-A-VIS GLOBAL REVENUE &
VOLUME
PHL share-ROW 5.05 10.5 I I 6.39 17.04 I 7. 73 I 8.44
Global Volume 416.33 443.96 473.46 504.96 538.60 574.53
PHL share- US/EU 0
PHL share- ROW 1.38 2.44 3.81 3.96 4.12 4.29
Global Revenue 406.34 432.08 461.94 493.87 528.03 564.56
STRATEGY
Venlafaxine is the market leader in the anti-depressant market as of 2006 with sales of
over US$ 3.8 billion
This molecule is preceded by a multi stage intermediate process before obtaining the final
API, thus making it difficult to produce the molecule in-house from the initial stages.
There are many companies producing the intermediates of this product, thus obtaining the
intermediate would be a feasible option. The N-1 Strategy is thus recommended.
3. NATEGLINIDE
Nateglinide is indicated as monotherapy to lower blood glucose in patients with Type 2
diabetes (non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, NIDDM) whose hyperglycemia carmot
be adequately controlled by diet and physical exercise and who have not been chronically
treated with other anti -diabetic agents.
Anti-Diabetic Novaritis Starlix
135
Aug 2009 US$450/kg
US$400/kg
INTERMEDIATES
N-Hydroxy Succinimide
D-Phenyl Alanine
4-Iso Propyl Benzoic Acid
Trans Para Isopropyl Cyclohexane Carboxylic Acid
P-Methoxy Phenyl Acetone
COMPETITION
India
Cipla Ltd,Dr Reddy's Laboratories
Ltd, Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd,
Biocon India Ltd, Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Limited, Matrix
Laboratories Ltd
China
Cangzhou Green Chemical
India China
Competitors
Other Markets
Ill Non DMF Holders
II DMF Holders
Industry Co Ltd, Changzhou Y abang Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co Ltd,
Hangzhou Dakang Chemicals Co Ltd, Jiangyin Yongda Chemical Co Ltd, Wenling
Shitang Xiangyang Chemical Factory, Zhejiang Taizhou Hisoar Pharm Chem Co Ltd
ASSUMPTIONS
The molecule is an on patent product so it is assumed that Pirarnal Healthcare has to be
ready with the DMF fillings before 2009 when the patent for this product is expiring.
The molecule will start generating revenues for Piramal Healthcare from 2009 since the
company is ready with the DMF.
The following assumptions with respect to the volume and price of the molecule have
been made to understand the revenues that would be generated from this molecule.
Current Market Price
~,·-r\ 1t :!111,}? '. . . · ..
1.\\\ Jl!J(Il tf)·.~}I1~• d\~ "ihif)} . "' . t:·\'.''•{1)'; {;~•, J~lf~-;: < ' ,,- '
US/EU 30% dip 15% dip Stable Stable Stable Stable
ROW 40%dip 20%dip 15% dip Stable Stable Stable
136
The prices for the years 2006 to 2008 have been taken as stable. Also ROW is a realistic
benchmark for the lowest possible price that a molecule can realize.
Volume
From the year of off-patent i.e. 2009, the volume rise in the US/EU market is 7% while in
the ROW is 4%. The volumes for the years 2006 to 2008 have been increased at a
constant CAGR.
PHL Volume Market Share
US/EU 10% 15% Stable Stable
ROW 10% 20% 30% Stable Stable Stable
PHL's MARKET SHARE IN REVENUE & VOLUME VIS-A-VIS GLOBAL REVENUE &
VOLUME
PHL share- US/EU 7.50 8.02 11.44 12.24
PHLshare-ROW 3.16 6.57 10.26 10.67 11.09 11.51
Global Volume 75.25 79.57 84.15 89.02 94.18 99.67
PHL share- ROW 2.88 4.80 6.35 6.61 6.87 7.15
Global Revenue 85 75 76 80 85 91
STRATEGY
The patent for Nateglinide is expiring in 2009 and since the ROW market is only
0.25% for the molecule US/EU markets should be the focus as soon as we manufacture.
As per little research done on this molecule there is no hazardous chemistry involved and
the product by itself is also not hazardous.
137
The total tonnage for the molecule is also 18 tonnes in 2012 and we do have existing
capacity of 800 tons at the Digwal plant.
Also there not many competitors for this particular molecule so PHL does have an
advantage there.
The existing competitors import intennediates from US and China so it is feasible
to follow the N-1 strategy. Also Piramal Healthcare would have to tie with those generic
manufactures who are first to launch the formulations.
5. SERTRALINE
Sertraline Anti-Depressant Pfizer
COMPETITION
DMF Holders (India)
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, Cadila
Healthcare Ltd, Cipla Ltd, Dr
Reddy's Laboratories Ltd, Lupin Ltd, 20
Matrix Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd, Sun Pham1aceutical
Industries Ltd,
Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Wanbury Ltd
DMF Holders (China)
None
ADDITION,\L INFOR.\IATION
TotTen!
15
10
5 •
0
Zolosoft June
2006
Competitors
India China Other Markets
USA: US$
140/kg
ROW: US$
130/kg
!B Non DMF Holders
t1 DMF Holders
Sertraline is primarily used to treat clinical depression in adult outpatients as well
as obsessive-compulsive, panic and social anxiety disorders in both adults and children.
138
In 2007 it was the most prescribed antidepressant on the U.S. retail market with
29,652,000 prescriptions ( Source:'Top Generic Drugs by units in 2007', Verispan
VONA, Full year 2007 )
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions with respect to the volume and price of the molecule
have been made to understand the revenues that would be generated from this molecule.
Current Market Price
ROW 15 % Stable Stable Stable
dip
The prices for the years 2008 have been calculated by taking a 20 % dip on prices in both
US/EU &ROW.
Volume
For VSIEV the volume growth rates have been assumed as 15% for 2009 over previous
year and thereafter kept uniform growth of7% ti112014
For ROW markets, the volume growth rate has been assumed to be 20% till2014 as this
molecule is a potential volume builder
PHL Volume Market Share
15%
ROW 10% 20% 30% Stable Stable
PHL's MARKET SHARE IN REVENUE & VOLUME VIS-A-VIS GLOBAL REVENUE &
VOLUME
'!_\)itt ';' • y i ;:'\ ,,,'711'1''' 1}\·:~:fiHr· ir\~&itl_~f, IS.l''Til~ •':'".' 441f,;; H\~ ~~Ot~ ,, , , A.Y . ' "!': ~ .. ,/ .... ,
PHL share- VSIEV - - 24.99 40.11 57.22 61.23
PilL share- ROW 9.89 23.75 42.74 51.29 61.55 73.86
Global Volume 317.23 352.SO 392.40 438.39 491.30 552.37
139
PHL share- ROW 3.32 14.36 17.23 20.68 24.81
Global Revenue 132.78 146.62 162.35 180.26 200.74 224.22
STRATEGY
Although there are a large number of players in the market today, but this a
growing molecule (a volume builder) and consolidation is bound in the industry in future
N-1 strategy suggested with Zhejiang Neo Dankong, the largest manufacturer of Sertaline
in China. PHL should ramp up, build volumes and go backward to in-house
manufacturing in due course oftime
PHL's MARKET SHARE IN REVENUE & VOLUME VIS-A-VIS GLOBAL REVENUE &
VOLUME
PHL share- US/EU - 10.47 22.40 35.95
PHL share- ROW 5.39 11.22 23.34 36.40 37.80
Global Volume 290.74 307.85 326.04 345.36 365.89
3.14 6.72 10.78
PHL share- ROW 1.35 2.25 3.98 6.21 6.46
Global Revenue 100.16 88.89 90.70 96.43 102.52
4.7 The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India:
"Heartless Exploitation of the Poor and Suffering"?- A Study by Yale
University, USA
TRIPs, the intellectual property component of the Uruguay round GATT Treaty,
gave rise to an acrimonious debate between the developed countries and less developed
countries (LDCs). On one side, business interests in the developed world claimed large
losses from the imitation and use of their innovations in LDCs. They also asserted that
140
establishing strong intellectual property rights would actually benefit the developing
countries by encouraging foreign investment, the transfer of technology and greater
domestic research and development (R&D). On the other side, LDC governments
adamantly opposed fhis view, worrying about the higher prices that stronger intellectual
property rights would entail and about fhe harm that their introduction might cause to
infant high tech industries. No country was more actively involved in opposing this
component of the GATT agreement fhan India and no part of TRIPs was, and continues
to be, more sensitive than the proposal to require product patents for pharmaceutical
innovations. The national sentiment on fhis issue is well captured in an often quoted
statement made by Indira Gandhi at the World Healfh Assembly in 1982: "The idea of a
better ordered world is one in which medical discoveries will be free of patents and there
will be no profiteering from life and death."
What is striking about the original TRIPs debate and fhe continuing discussions
about pharmaceutical product patents is fhe divergence between fhe strength of the claims
made by both sides and the weakness of fhe empirical foundations for fhose claims. Now
that the treaty has been signed and mosf of fhe developing world is' committed to
introducing pharmaceutical product patents by the year 2004, not only do we not know
how much this may effect fheir welfare, we do not even know the direction of fhe effect.
This ignorance has political implications. India, for example, agreed to this aspect of fhe
treaty much against her will, believing it to be harmful to her interests. As a result, the
implementing legislation is currently on the shelf, unable to get through parliament. If it
could be shown, empirically, fhat product patents, in fact, conveyed some benefits to fhe
country, it would increase the local political will both to pass legislation and to enforce
patentee rights with greater enthusiasm. If, on the other hand, it could be shown that the
net effect of this part of World Trade Organization (WTO) membership will be, in fact,
very costly to the developing countries, it would put them in a stronger position from
which to argue that they should receive concessions on other fronts in future international
negotiations.
Apart from the immediate interest in the effects of this particular policy change,
the sheer size of the change, together with the fact that it was, essentially, imposed from
without, makes it a rare opportunity to examine the economic effects of granting patent
141
rights. In the aftermath of the signing of the GATT treaty, we are in a situation where a
large part of the world is moving from no protection to full-Hedged twenty year
protection of intellectual property rights in the one area where, it is thought, patents really
matter: pharmaceuticals. Further, unlike the historical introduction of pharmaceutical
product patents in much of the developed world the group of countries which will be
newly granting rights in product innovations have distinctly different demands for drugs
than those which currently grant such rights. Thus, there is some hope for detecting
incentive effects in the pattern of R&D spending.
The focus is on various ways in which the introduction of product patents for
pharmaceuticals may, in theory, benefit or hurt the country. In 1970, India put into place
a series of policies aimed at moving the country towards self-sufficiency in medicines. At
this time, the national sector was very small, estimated at less than 25% of the domestic
pharmaceutical market (Redwood, 1994). Of the top ten firms by retail sales, only two
were Indian firms and the rest were subsidiaries of multinationals. Much of the country's
pharmaceutical consumption was met by imports.
An important part of the policy package was the passage of the Patents Act 1970
(effective April, 1972). This legislation greatly weakened intellectual property protection
in India, particularly for pharmaceutical innovations. Pharmaceutical product
innovations, as well as those for food and agrochemicals, became unpatentable, allowing
innovations patented elsewhere to be freely copied and marketed in India. The statutory
term was shortened to 5 to 7 years on pharmaceutical process patents and automatic
licensing was put in place. As a result, the number of patents granted per year fell by
three-quarters over the following decade, from 3,923 in 1970-71 (of which 629 were to
Indian applicants, 3,294 to foreign applicants) down to 1,019 in 1980-81 (349 Indian, 670
foreign) (OPPI, 1996a). Although all inventors were affected by the weakened patent
regime, it is clear that foreigners, in particular, no longer found taking out a patent in
India worthwhile. Other aspects of the policy package set up to encourage the domestic
production of phannaceuticals included restrictions on the import of finished
fonnulations, high tariff rates, ratio requirements (where imports of bulk drugs had to be
matched by purchases from domestic sources at a fixed ratio) and equity ceilings on
foreign participation. Further, the strict price control regulation which was introduced
142
with the 1970 Drugs Price Control Order, while making the production of
Phannaceuticals less protitable for all !inns selling in the Indian market, made it
relatively less interesting for foreign firms with market options elsewhere. Thus even the
price control regime probably contributed to the shift towards a greater share of
production being met by Indian firms. Supported by this regulatory environment, by
1991, Indian finns accounted for 70% of the bulk drugs and 80% of formulations
produced in the country (Hamied, 1993). Of the top ten firms by 1996 phannaceutical
sales, six are now Indian firms rather than the subsidiaries of foreign multinationals
Domestic firms now produce about 350 of the 500 bulk drugs consumed in the country
(Government of India, 1994a). Employment in the pharmaceutical sector was estimated
to have reached almost half a million by 1995 (OPPI, J996b).
4.7 .1 The Economic Effects of the Introduction of Product Patents: Theory
There is a well-known tradeoff implicit in using a patent system to encourage
innovation. On the one hand are the static costs associated with monopoly pricing and, on
the other, the dynamic gains associated with innovation. We first briefly review briefly
this tradeoff in the standard single country setting and then consider the new issues,
which arise in a multi -country world.
In order to develop a demand model in India for a newly marketed drug we
assume that in the absence of patent protection innovations are freely available then,
without protection, price is equal to marginal cost, MC, and output is Qc. When the
inventor is allowed to obtain a patent and prices the drug to maximize his profits from the
Indian market, the price is Pm and output falls to Qm. The fonnation of triangle 'D'
would represent the welfare loss to Indian consumers associated with introducing product
patents. In addition to this deadweight loss are the costs of administering the patent
system and enforcing patentee rights through the courts when there are infringement
disputes. There are several possible sources of dynamic gains to be had from granting
patent protection. The inventor's profit, 'P', is the most obvious source of dynamic gains.
Without protection, inventors do not appropriate the benefits of new drug innovations and
so have a sub-optimal incentive to invest in the research and development to discover,
143
test, and bring them to market. Because patents allow inventors to appropriate more of
the consumer surplus from their innovations, granting patents may increase welfare by
stimulating additional R&D investment.
A second source of potential dynamic gains comes from the disclosure
requirement today common to all patent laws: specifications must be written to enable
any person "skilled in the art" to make use of the innovation. As patentees reveal their
innovations in their patent applications, infonnation about new technologies becomes
more quickly available to others as an input into their own R&D. Finally, the availability
of patents may increase the efficiency of the production of drugs and the efficiency of the
research to discover and develop new drugs by facilitating contracting between firms.
The innovating finn is able to reveal its innovation without losing control and hence may
be able to subcontract parts of the development work at lower cost. Similarly, the finn
may be more willing to license the patented innovation to manufacturing finns for
production. Arora (1996) points to the role that patents play in providing a means to
contract for the transfer of the 'know-how' associated with innovations, a component of
knowledge which may be particularly important to finns in developing·countries. When
considering the welfare of a single country, which exists in a multi-country world, new
considerations arise.
Static Effects
In a single country world, the identity of inventors is not important. The transfer
of benefits from the hands of consumers, in the fonn of consumer surplus, into the hands
of inventors, in the form of profits (the square P) arising from the price increase may
have distributional implications, but the effect of the transfer can be offset by domestic
policies. It is not a net cost to the country. In a multi-country world, however, the static
costs to one country of introducing patent protection depend not only on the size of the
deadweight loss 'D' but on who is doing the inventing. If, for example, the newly
available patent rights for phannaceuticals in India are assigned entirely to inventors
elsewhere, then the loss of consumer surplus 'P' is a net cost to India. All of the profits
accrue to foreign nationals in the fonn of royalties, if production remains in India but
under license, or as export profits if the patented drugs are sourced from elsewhere and
144
imported to serve the Indian market. If the latter occurs, and local production is replaced
by imports, the cost associated with the introduction of product patents is exacerbated by
a loss of employment, a negative shift in the balance payments, and a loss of
selfsufficiency.
Helpman, 1994, gives a general equilibrium model of increasing patent strength
which incorporates terms of trade effects.) Of course, some of the newly granted patents
will be owned by Indians. For these, the protits remain in the country and the situation
resembles again the one-country case described above. It is important to realize, in
particular when trying to understand the strength of multinational corporations' (MNCs')
lobbying efforts during the TRIPs negotiations, that in a multi -country world there are
two relevant demand curves. That for India (or the group of LDCs) and the other for the
patent protected world (see Fgure A; dashed line marked Dw). In the 'world', the
patentee receives, each period, profits as indicated by the large dashed box--until the
patent expires and there is generic entry to bid down the price. A crucial feature of
India's lack of protection for pharmaceutical products is that it has enabled Indian firms
to develop commercial production capabilities for on-patent drugs before patent expiry
and move rapidly into the world market with them on the day the patents have lapsed.
This means that the introduction of patent protection in India will confer an additional
benefit on patent owners, over and above any profits obtained from sales in the Indian
market: it will delay the erosion of the profits derived from world sales of patented drugs
which comes about with generic competition. Is this important? It has been estimated that
just before patent expiry Glaxo-Wellcome was earning a profit of around 7 million
dollars per day from sales of Zantac (The Economist, April 26, 1997).
The flipside of this gain to patentees is that introducing product patents imposes
an additional cost on India, this time to Indian finns rather than consumers, by lowering
the profits earned by Indian finns as a result of their first-mover advantage. (It also
imposes a cost on 'world' consumers in higher prices, but they are not the focus of our
analysis here.)
Finally, in a multi-country world one must ask where R&D will take place. The
improvements in efficiency, which may be obtained through licensing when patents arc
available, may go hand in hand with a shift from domestic, imitative, R&D to a strategy
145
of purchasing technology from elsewhere, if these two strategies are substitutes. If, on the
other hand, technologies purchased from others complement domestic R&D efforts then
this aspect of the availability of patents may encourage greater domestic research efforts.
In a multi-country world firms also have many options in deciding where to locate R&D
facilities and obtaining this type of direct investment can be beneficial: local firms have
been shown to receive positive spillovers from the R&D performed by neighboring firms
as stipulated by Jaffe, Trajtenberg and Henderson.
The position that a country takes towards intellectual property may influence
whether it is viewed as a favorable location for such investment. (The evidence is mixed;
Maskus, 1996.) There may be real economic reasons why intellectual property laws
matter to location decisions. Beyond these, a country's stance on intellectual property
may be given further importance by being treated as a signal of its business climate more
generally.
Dynamic Effects
It is seen that the static costs to a country that is introducing patent protection in a
multicountry world may be higher than the standard one-country model would suggest. It
has been argued that the offsetting dynamic gains to additional patent rights may also be
minimal in a world where patents are already available to protect much of the global
market. With profits coming from other patent protected markets, those created by the
newly available rights are only incremental, may be small, and, with diminishing returns
to R&D, may stimulate negligible amounts of additional innovation. (Chin and
Grossman, 1990; and Deardorff, 1992) This suggests that the group of countries who are
introducing product patents as a result of WTO membership may face higher consumer
drug prices and a loss of industry profit and employment, for little gain in new
phannaceuticals. There are grounds, however, for thinking that this paints too gloomy a
picture. It may be the case that the incremental retums created by monopoly profits in
these LDCs are, currently, too small to stimulate much new discovery research. But
existing drug innovations are only useful if they are developed and introduced.
Innovations are not, in fact, 'freely available'. The process of adapting phannaceuticals
products to local conditions, obtaining marketing approval and developing the market
146
must be done in every country individually and it is a costly affair. While the profits
associated with India's introduction of patent protection may have little effect on world
drug discovery they may have a large effect on the willingness of foreign or domestic
firms to invest in marketing in India drugs which would, in any event, have been
discovered. As discussed below, the issues here are directly akin to those surrounding
orphan drugs. On the other hand, it is also possible that an inventor with the ability to
monopolize the market may, for reasons associated with the global market, chose to delay
introduction longer than the time that domestic firms would otherwise have been able to
launch their own imitative products. Thus it is not clear whether introducing product
patents will speed up or slow the availability of drugs to Indian consumers. Most
important, perhaps, in determining whether there will be significant dynamic benefits to
be gained from the new patent rights is the fact that demand patterns for pharmaceuticals
differ. Although the new rights may contribute very incrementally to the overall returns
to R&D, the additional profits may represent a sizable addition to the returns to doing
certain types of R&D. Just as patent protection in India might make it profitable to obtain
marketing approval in India for a new drug, 'it may also add significantly to the incentives
to discover a cure for leprosy. Long ago Vernon (1957) observed "that inventors in the
industrialized areas of the world may need some special incentive to concentrate their
talents on products of special utility to underdeveloped areas." (Quoted in Seibeck, et. al.,
1982). The benefit to the 'South' of introducing patent protection when demands differ is
explored formally in Diwan and Rodrik (1991)
Evidence: Static Price Effects
To estimate the size of the deadweight loss that will be associated with the
introduction of product patents in India one needs to know two things. First the extent to
which prices will be higher for new on-patent drugs as a result of patent protection and
second, the consumer surplus lost as the result of given price increases.
Pharmaceutical Prices
Consider first the likely increase in pnces. How much the granting of legal
monopoly rights to an inventor enhances his ability to raise prices above marginal cost
depends, firstly, the extent to which it is possible to extract rents without patent
protection. In India, this seems to be small for most drugs. The phannaccutical market in
147
India currently appears to be competitive. There are a multitude of manufacturers: in
addition to 250 large pharmaceutical finns and about 9,000 registered small-scale units,
the Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association (IDMA) estimates that there another 7,000
unregistered small-scale units producing drugs (Clippings, 12/93). Seven years after its
introduction in India, there were 48 firms offering the important on-patent drug
Ciprofloxacin for sale in the 1996 Pharmaceuticals Guide. The U.K. multinational Glaxo
was faced with several local competitors from the first day that its subsidiary marketed its
proprietary drug Ranitadine (Zantac) in India. Competition between MNCs also may be
growing. One executive of an MNC subsidiary suggested in an interview that the
gentleman's agreement which has, over the past decades, kept MNCs from selling other
MN C's on-patent drugs in India is now beginning to break down. That said, drugs are
sold in India under brand names and early entrants with strong brands seem to have a
persistent advantage in the market. Ghemawat and Kothavala (1996) report that Ranbaxy,
one of the largest Indian pharmaceutical firms, is consistently able to charge a 5 to 10%
price premium (on uncontrolled drugs, see below). This is partly a reflection of real
quality differences in a situation where quality control is primarily assured by a firm's
interest in its reputation. It is also a reflection of doctors' strong tendency to prescribe by
brand rather than more difficult to remember generic names (interviews).
The third column of Table 2 shows the 1995 Indian prices of the four drugs with
the largest sales in India among those which were on-patent in Europe in 1995. The
following columns indicate, for each drug, the ratio of prices in Pakistan, the U.K. and
the U.S. for the same dosage form relative to the price in India. Although the ratio of
Indian prices to those elsewhere differs substantially across drugs, and this is a small non
random sample of drugs, it suggests that prices in India for drugs which are on-patent
elsewhere are currently substantially lower than in the countries granting protection.
Would they have been higher if India had had in place the type of protection it
now is facing? This depends on what the patentees would like to do and what they would
be allowed to do. A number of factors might contribute to a high price elasticity of
demand for a new patented drug in India and thus a monopoly price which is not
substantially higher than the competitive price. First, incomes are low and, with less than
4% of the population covered by medical insurance, drug expenditures are mainly paid
148
directly by consumers (Redwood, 1994). As a result, consumers are likely to be more
price sensitive than they are in the developed countries and quicker to switch to less
effective but cheaper alternative therapies when they exist or to stop making drug
purchases altogether. Currently many diseases and conditions do have multiple
alternative drug therapies which are off-patent and competitively priced. In fact, as of the
end of I 996, only eight drugs on the World Health Organization's 7th Model List of
Essential Drugs were still under patent protection in Europe. Of these, five are designated
as 'complementary' rather than 'essential' (Redwood, 1994). So the option to switch to a
lower-priced drug often seems to be available. In addition, it was found during the
research that in context of sale and distribution of pharmaceuticals it is also relatively
easy for consumers to switch between drugs in India. Chemists quite freely substitute
alternative, usually lower priced, medicines for those prescribed, and will sell
prescription-only pharmaceuticals without scripts. The results of this research in terms of
trial buying Zantac in Khan Market fully support this view.) Danzon and Kim (1995)
provide examples of the sensitivity of cross-country pharmaceutical price comparisons to
sample selection. In comparison, in 1987, about 75 percent of Americans had outpatient
prescription drug benefits (OTA, 1993).
However, while all of the above considerations suggest that Indian consumers will
be very sensitive to high prices on patented drugs, there are reasons not to take it for
granted. Income per capita has been growing at about 5 percent per year during the past
few years and the opening of medical insurance provision to private competition is a
refonn which is being discussed by government (JMF, 1997). One also cmmot assume
that alternative therapies will always be available to provide competition for patented
drugs. A considerable research has been undeitaken to detennine the percentage of the
audited Indian pharmaceutical market going to drugs which are on-patent in the U.K. in
various therapeutic areas, based on data from 1992. For example, 84% of the drugs sold
to treat antipeptic ulcers contain substances on-patent in Europe. While there may be
substitutes, the dominance of the patented drugs in some categories suggests that they are
not very close substitutes and hence would not contribute much to holding down prices.
A look at history also does not give one much confidence that low incomes will put an
149
effective lid on prices. In 1961, at a time when India had strong intellectual property
laws, a U.S. Senate Committee headed by Senator Kefauver reported that "'in drugs,
generally, India ranks amongst the highest priced nations of the world."' (quoted in
Hamied, 1993). Similarly, the prices of four major drugs in Pakistan, which does grant
product patents for pharmaceuticals, are 3 to 14 times higher than in India. Although
Pakistan is somewhat richer than India (1995 GDP per capita was about $419 in Pakistan
versus about $334 in India; IMF, 1997) the difference in income is too small to seem a
plausible explanation for most of the observed price differential. There is another
consideration, one which did not exist historically but is of growing importance today,
which may exert a strong upward pressure on the price that a patent-owning firm would
choose to set in India. Patentees maximize global profits. Increasingly, drug prices in
developed country markets are being regulated using global reference pricing. For
countries which fix ceiling prices, the price for a newly introduced drug may be linked to
its price elsewhere. This policy may be explicit, or world prices may be linked, but less
directly, to regulatory decisions. In the U.S., Clinton's 1993 Health Security Act proposed
using the lowest price in 22 other countries as a benchmark for determining the
reasonableness of prices set for newly introduced drugs (Danzon and Kim, 1995). Faced
with either situation, patent owning firms may well chose to sell in India at a price
substantially higher than Pm in Figure A because they do not want to put in jeopardy the
prices that they are allowed in other regulated markets. The importance of this reference
pricing concern was brought up repeatedly in interviews with executives of MNCs'
Indian subsidiaries However that an innovating firm would choose to sell at a higher
price when granted patent protection is clearly beside the point if it is not allowed to
charge a higher price. One cannot really think about the effect of product patents in the
pharmaceutical industry without being equally attentive to the price control regime. India
has had, and continues to have, price control on a large part of the drug market. There is
nothing in the GATT treaty which prevents India from continuing to use price regulation
to protect consumers against patented drugs being sold at high prices. While appealing,
and, on the face of it, simple, this policy is not straightforward. First, the Indian price
control regime is set up such that ceiling prices arc detem1ined as a mark-up on input
costs. This means that there is a 'transfer-price loophole'. An MNC may export the
150
patented active ingredient to its Indian subsidiary at an artificially high transfer price and
thereby attain a higher controlled price for its formulations. News reports suggest that
MN Cs have not been restrained about using this loophole:
"Pfizer charges $9,000 per Kg. for same material available from Italy@$ 125 per
Kg." "Sandoz imports @ $60,000 per Kg. item available from Gennany@ 23,000 per
Kg." Theobromine imported by an MNC subsidiary at 2,436 Rs/kg compared to a price
of I ,088 Rs/kg on the international market. (Scrip, quoted in IDMA, 1996; and Clippings,
1993). However, this practice can be controlled, if it is detected, by GATT rules on
uniform global transfer prices. A patent owner may also simply refuse to supply a drug
placed under what it views as too stringent price control. While this is conceivable, it is
unlikely that either a foreign or a domestic firm would relish the type of negative
publicity that a refusal to supply would create. Domestic firms, in particular, could be
subject to retaliatory pressure by the government. And the government would have a
good case for waiving the restrictions on compulsory licensing as allowed by the GATT
treaty in cases of "national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency".
Because India has' a well developed industry; allowing domestic firms fo obtain
compulsory licenses is a realistic alternative to supply by the patentee. Finally, some
patented drugs may be explicitly exempted from the price control regime by the
government. Currently, in order to encourage domestic R&D investment, indigenously
developed pharmaceutical products may be declared free of price control for 3 to I 0
years, with the number of years depending on the extent of the domestic R&D input. As
of 1996, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research had issued 37 certifications
of indigenous R&D efforts (Government of India, 1996). These include two companies
who received exemptions from price control for developing indigenous processes to
produce Ranatidine (Pharmaceutical Guide, I 996). In the future, some of the products
exempted under this policy will also be patent protected in India. In the end, the
stringency of the price controls actually placed on patented phannaceuticals will be the
outcome of a complex bargaining process between the government and industry. The
most that can be said with certainty is that granting inventors product patent rights, with
limited scope for compulsory licensing, will strengthen the hand of fim1s in the
negotiations.
15 I
The Deadweight Loss
The deadweight loss of Indian consumer welfare that will result from the introduction of
product patents will depend, in large part, on how important patented drugs are in total
pharmaceutical sales. Redwood (1994) gives two figures for June of 1993. At that time,
the top 500 brands in the audited pharmaceuticals market contained 24 active substances
under product patent in Europe. Redwood (1994) points out that compulsory licensing on
the grounds that the patented item is being sold by the patentee at too high a price is not
expressly forbidden in the treaty. To argue that it was granted to counter a threat to not
supply would give India a strong case if a compulsory license were disputed by the
country of the patentee. It would seem that the only possible benefit of this policy could
be to firms with strong brands able, on that basis to price at a premium, or to single
suppliers. Otherwise, exemption from price control, given that competitor suppliers
remain bound by price control, would seem rather uninteresting. Sales of drugs
containing these substances were only 10.9% of top 500 sales. Including all brands, 31
substances were on-patent in Europe, and sales of drugs containing these substances were
· just 8.4% of total audited sales. Since audited sales exclude small firms and government
procurement, these figures probably overstate the share of sales in India of drugs which
contain substances under product patent cover elsewhere. There is no indication here that
the introduction of patent protection is going to have a large effect the welfare of most
drug consumers. If the rate of new product innovation is stable over time, in equilibrium
the introduction of new patented drugs will be matched by those going off patent.
Supposing this to be the case, as exclusive marketing rights and then product patents are
introduced in India, the percentage of the market under patent protection will initially
grow but then top off by the year 2015, probably remaining at a rather low level. One
question that it is important to ask here is whether it is reasonable to extrapolate into the
future from current levels of on-patent drugs. Is the rate of phannaceutical innovation
likely to be stable? In the past innovation has come in waves, with important
breakthroughs, such as the sulpha drugs. Putting a clever twist on these statistics, which
are repeatedly used by the supporters of the impending regime, the Indian Drug
Manufacturers' Association (the industry lobby for the smaller domestic, and therefore
opposition, firms) makes the following calculation:
!52
Total production of formulations in 1994 Rs. 80 billion,
Share covered by foreign patents at I 0% Rs. 8 billion,
Estimated share of U.S. MNC's at 50% Rs. 4 billion
Loss to U.S. MNCs as calculated by them and submitted, and accepted, by the U.S. Trade
Representative Rs. 14 billion gains to Indian manufacturers on same at at 4% of sales Rs.
0.16 billion (IDMA, 1996). It is not likely to be the same as the share of the market
currently going to drugs on-patent in Europe for two reasons. First, some products will be
patented in India which are never patented in Europe. Second, the higher prices arising
from patent protection may either raise, or lower, the value of sales of the patented and
substitute off-patent drugs relative to what they would have been if such protection
werenot available. followed by incremental developments of the newly discovered
families of drugs. There is a suggestion that drug research in recent years has been
relatively unfruitful so we may currently be at a low point in tenns of important drugs
still under patent cover. While U.S. FDA approvals of new medical entities have been
fairly constant over the past two decades, ranging from 12 to 30 per year during the
period 1976-91 but with no obvious trend (OPPI, 1994), it is claimed that in recent years
they have largely been for 'me-too' type innovations which do not represent significant
therapeutic advances. The U.S. FDA reported that 84% of the new drugs placed on the
market by large U.S. firms during the period 1981-88 had 'little or no' potential for
therapeutic gain over existing drug therapies (Special Committee on Aging of the U.S.
Senate, reported in Hamied, 1993). Similarly, in a study of 775 New Chemical Entities
(NCEs) introduced into the world during the period 1975-89, Barra! (1990) reports that a
group of experts rated only 95 as truly innovative. If there is a new breakthrough in
chemical-based drug research this pattern could change again, leading to a jump in
important patented drugs. Further, biotechnology, and the inclusion of micro-organisms
as patentable subject matter, present a whole new opportunity for finding important and
patentable new drug therapies. If biotechnology fulfills its promise or if there is a new
breakthrough in chemical-based research, then granting product patents for drug
innovations could have a much more substantial impact on consumer welfare than the
153
ligures given above would suggest. Focussing only on the part of the Indian market
which will be patent protected, the deadweight loss of consumer welfare associated with
those patents depends on the elasticity of demand for the patented drugs. Greater price
sensitivity may result in lower prices (although, as noted above, Indian demand
conditions may not be the overriding concem of patent owners when setting prices in
India).
However, for a given change in price, greater sensitivity implies a greater fall in
sales and a correspondingly higher deadweight loss as consumers switch to Jess desirable
alternatives or out of the drug market altogether. A number of estimates have been made
of the potential consumer surplus loss from price increases associated with introducing
product patents in India. The general method followed has been to assume.a constant
price elasticity demand function for patented drugs and a range of ex-ante industry
structures. Then price and welfare changes are simulated under various assumed
elasticities of demand and assuming that firms have pricing freedom and no global
concerns (see Nogues, 1993; Subramanian, 1994; and Maskus and Eby Kanan, 1994) .
The most recent and detailed of these studies is Watal (1996) who breaks down the
market by patented drug and links the assumed elasticity to the level of therapeutic
competition. Her results suggest a fall in social welfare of 33 million US dollars and an
average increase in the price of drugs if patents had been available of about 50 percent..
4.7.2 The Redistribution of Profits and Manufacturing Employment
In a multi-country world, the static cost associated with the introduction of
product patents depends in part on which countries' inventors receive the protlts which
are gained through higher prices in India and a longer period before generic entry in the
world market. Given current patterns, it appears that most of these profits will, at least
initially, go to foreign inventors. During the period 1975-1995 only 65 of approximately
l 00,000 patents granted in the U.S. for drug and health innovations were to inventors
with an Indian address.S Initial 'black-box' applications to the Indian Patent Ofllce (those
submitted after January I, 1995; See Appendix II) suggest too that foreign inventors will
be the main beneficiaries of the new product patents regime. Of the drug-related patents
154
granted in 1995 and 1996, and therefore process patents, 39% and 48%, respectively,
were to domestic finns or inventors (based on the applicant's address) (IDMA, 1996). In
a sample (about half) of the patent applications made in the first six months of 1995,
again 50% of the applications for process patents were to India resident inventors.
However, in contrast, just 14% of the applications for product patents were made by
domestic inventors (CDRI, 1996a). The size of the new profit opportunities in India, and
hence the transfer from domestic consumer to foreign firms, depends, like the deadweight
loss, on the local demand functions for patented drugs and the extent to which patent
owning firms choose and are permitted to set prices above costs. What about the other
profit rectangle, the world generics market? This market is already large: in 1995, about
half of all U.S. prescriptions were filled with generics (BCG, 1996). And it is projected to
grow very rapidly. Being first into this market appears to matter. A report by Lehman
Brothers (1996) notes that, in the U.S., the first generic entrant can sell at a 30% discount
to the branded product, compared to a 75%. Drugs and health includes all patents with an
international patent classification. Jonathan Putnam, Charles Rivers Associates, provided
these data. Newsletter reports that "Industry experts say ... SO per cent [of profits] are
milked out of a drug in the first 18 months of its reincarnation as a generic." CDRI
(1996). Being based in a country which does not grant product patents helps firms to get
into the market earlier. McFetridge (1996) notes that when Canada stopped granting its
generics manufacturers compulsory licenses to produce on-patent drugs, the firms "were
exercised by their loss of 'first mover' advantages in U.S. and other foreign generic
markets." In fact, Indian firms current! y have two institutional advantages in trying to
enter quickly with low costs. The lack of product patents means that an imitating firm can
have many years of experience with the commercial production of an on-patent drug
before the day that the patent expires in the U.S., in Europe and elsewhere. Indian firms
also benefit from the fact that, in India, changes in a drug's production process do not
require that it be re-approved for marketing, as is typically required elsewhere. Thus
Indian finns are free to experiment to fine-tune their production processes. That said,
Indian !inns are likely to become important players in this market regardless of whether
they have a first-mover advantage. India is a currently positioning to become a significant
supplier of bulk drugs to the world. Many manufacturing facilities have been approved by
155
the U.S. FDA, the U.K. MCA, and so on. In generics, low manufacturing costs are
essential. Here labor costs are India's most obvious advantage, but one Indian firm
recently estimated that its capital costs were also 50- 75% lower than those in developed
countries (Ghemawat and Kothavala, 1996). Most of the larger Indian firms have
ambitious plans to expand their generic drug exports, either as suppliers, through joint
venture agreements with foreign firms or by purchasing formulation plants overseas. For
example, Cipla has fonned a subsidiary with a local firm in South Africa to sell Cipla
products in that country, as well as a marketing alliance with Novopharm, Canada (Cipla,
1996). Ranbaxy has purchased formulation plants in the U.S. and in Ireland, as well as
forming a joint venture with Eli Lilly to market joint products in the U.S. Lupin has
alliances with Merck Generics, U.K., Fujisawa, U.S. and McGaw Inc., U.S., to market
their cephalosporin products. They have also just established a joint venture in South
Africa and are negotiating further alliances in Russia and China. Forming alliances rather
than direct marketing is the established route into the international market. A local
presence is seen to be necessary both to speed It was told by an executive at one MNC
subsidiary that in developed country· markets firms will often continue to use an early
process in commercial production, even when they know it to be less efficient than one
discovered later, simply because of the high cost of getting a new process approved,
marketing approvals and increase customer acceptance of Indian made products. MNCs
are also moving towards greater production of generics in India through their own
subsidiaries or in collaboration with Indian finns. In 1994 and 1995 there were 50
applications per year for government approval of collaborations with foreign partners in
the field of pharmaceuticals (including the establishment of subsidiaries; Government of
India, 1994 and 1995). These are primarily to source generic bulk drugs. Thus, while
generic sales may become less profitable for the Indian finns without the jump on other
entrants, it seems unlikely that the introduction of product patents will prevent either
Indian firms or India-based MNC subsidiaries from increasing their participation in the
world generics market. It is not entirely clear what the overall effect of granting product
patents will be on the amount of phannaceutical production taking place in India.
Currently, over three-quarters of the bulk drugs and finished fonnulations consumed in
India are produced domestically (see Section II). Most of these are off-patent drugs (see
156
Section IV). There is no reason to expect that granting product patents would e!Tect the
production of off-patent drugs for the domestic market one way or the other and, as
discussed above, it is not likely to dampen production for export to the world generics
market. Once patent protection is available, however, patent-owning firms may choose
either to export their patented drugs to India, thereby replacing domestic production, or
they may chose to produce in India through a subsidiary or under license to Indian firms.
An executive of an MNC subsidiary suggested in an interview that the MNCs' concern
about global price differentials makes local, low cost, production attractive as a way to
justify Indian prices which are lower than those charged in developed country markets.
On the other hand, the 'transfer pricing loophole' would give patent-owning MNCs an
incentive to produce bulk drug inputs elsewhere and then import them. On this point, one
executive of an Indian firm described a recent consumer opinion survey fielded in the
U.S. which indicated that an Indian made health product was acceptable to the extent that
it was used externally: shampoos and cremes were fme, toothpaste was more doubtful
and pharmaceuticals were definitely considered suspect. This bias may carry over to the
domestic market. An executive from an Indian fiim told me that launching a new drug in
India was impossible because of Indian doctors' view that a drug could not be important
if it had not appeared in Lancet. On the other hand, in another interview I was told of a
recent survey which had shown that, given the choice, Indian doctors prefer to prescribe
drugs made by Indian companies--which, it was suggested, might be due to unethical
detailing. Another executive of an MNC subsidiary pointed out that, while the availability
of strong intellectual property protection was necessary, other considerations, like tax
advantages, were at least as important in choosing a manufacturing location for on-patent
drugs. Further, he noted that, unlike generic drugs, manufacturing costs are a small
component of the price of patented drugs and therefore India's advantages as a low-cost
manufacturer would not be particularly useful in attracting investment in local production
facilities. So, while the largest part of phannaceutical production should be unaffected, it
seems likely that some part of the local production of on-patent drugs will be replaced by
imports. Since 1988-89 the phannaceutical sector has made a positive contribution to
India's balance of payments. With the introduction of product patents, the resulting
transfer of profit from domestic to foreign patent owners, via royalty payments or export
157
pro tits on drugs sold to Indian consumers, will have an adverse effect on India's balance
of payments. So, too, will the fact that Indian firms will no longer be able to export on
patent drugs to other countries, primarily in the former Soviet Union and in Africa,
which, until now, also did not offer protection for pharmaceutical products. The latter
effect is likely to be small, however. Measuring exports of major on patent drugs, it is
clear that on-patent drugs are only a small part of total exports by value. One can see too,
that most of the growth in exports has been in bulk drugs, which are likely to have been
headed to the West, rather than in finished formulations. The current and growing
importance of generics in exports suggests that the introduction of product patents will
not have a dramatic negative effect on the balance of payments, such as that experienced
by Italy where the net pharmaceutical exports as a share of total trade fell by about 30
percent in the decade after product patents were introduced (Scherer and Weisbrot, 1995).
4.7.3 Evidence: Administration and Enforcement
In the developed countries, the resource cost in terms of skilled labor required to
run and enforce It is not entirely obvious why MNCs have not invested in Indian
manufacturing of their on-patent drugs since, regardless, the drugs are imitated by local
firms. When posed this question, the same executive stated there was 'always something
to lose', particularly through employee job switching, a patent system is given little
thought. However, patent examiners, to take one example, typically have advanced
degrees and work experience in the relevant sciences. In the countries strengthening their
patent systems now, nationals with such qualifications are scarce, in high demand from
industry, and consequently patent offices will either be under (or inappropriately) staffed
or they will be very costly to run. For the year 1993-94, the Indian PTO cost the
government about 330 thousand dollars (net of receipts; Controller General of Patents,
Designs and Trademarks, 1996). By contrast, in the late 1980s the U.S. PTO was
spending about 300 million dollars per year. Although one would not expect the Indian
system be as costly as that in the U.S. (but note that India has a population roughly four
times greater), improving the facilities and staff so that it can effectively deal with the
coming expansion in the size and importance of the intellectual property rights system is
certain to be expensive. There is also a shortage of the complementary skills outside of
the patent office required to maintain an effective patent system. In 1995 there were only
158
151 patent agents in the entire country (Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks, 1996). Because relatively few patents are filed, there is little experience with
writing specifications, detecting loopholes in others' patents, and so on.
According to a Delhi patent attorney, in the past two decades there have been just
four or five patent infringement cases filed per year, so there is little local legal
experience with patent litigation. The types of problems encountered in a country
inexperienced with intellectual property go further. He related a story of an early
copyright infringement case, where the police stapled confiscated CD Roms into a
notebook, thus destroying the evidence. In recognition of the current shortage of
awareness and skills needed to maintain and use a patent system, some training has
begun. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has held more than 50
seminars across the country to increase understanding of intellectual property. A.K.
Reddy, Chairman of Reddy's Group, has donated land to establish a National Institute of
Intellectual Property. A primary goal of the institute would be to train patent agents. This
does not, of course, mean that there is little infringement. With a short patent term,
compulsory licensing with a royalty cap of 4%, and no reversal of the burden of proof,
there has been little payoff to prosecuting infringements. According to an Indian patent
attorney, patentees usually do better than the 4% royalty by settling disputes outside of
court. In discussions with people in the country involved with the patent system one
becomes aware of the large range of expertise--within companies, among lawyers, the
courts, the police, and so on required to make a patent system work. Again, developing
and using these human resources is expensive, and will be particular! y so if strengthening
the system leads to a rash of litigation. Of course, not all of the anticipated increase in
administration and enforcement costs can be laid at the feet of phannaceutical product
patents, since changes in the IPR system will be more extensive. However, if the U.S.
experience is anything to go by, most litigation can be expected over patents in this area
(Lanjouw and Schankennan, 1997).
4. 7.4 Evidence: Diffusion
Dynamic benefit of new innovation comes only after two steps: discovery and
diffusion. One part of diffusion is moving a new pharmaceutical product from the
laboratory to the market. This process includes adapting the product to local conditions,
159
obtaining marketing approval, and introducing it to doctors and others in the distribution
chain. Diffusion also includes the spread of infonnation about new discoveries to other
firms, so that the information can become an input into their own research and
development. In this section we consider what empirical evidence can say now about the
effect that introducing product patents might have on the rate of the diffusion of
pharmaceutical innovations to India, as infonnation to !inns and as new products to
Indian consumers.
One of the original argwnents for having a patent system was that, in return for
monopoly rights received from the government, the inventor disclosed his innovation in
the patent specification. This was seen as an important mechanism for diffusing
information so that others could build upon it and to avoid the replication of research
efforts. While this argument makes sense in a one-country world, or, as in history, a
multi-country world where communication links are poor, it does not carry through to the
group of countries introducing produce patents today. The bulk of significant innovations
are patented.
As one· Indian R&D manager pointed out, the local conditions inClude climatic
variation from the tropics to snowy mountains with unpredictable transport conditions
and long shelve-life requirements. Ensuring stability is one of the foremost concerns in
product development for the Indian market. Internationally and Indian firms are easily
able to access world patent specifications. Interviews with the major Indian firms
indicated that all of them had this capacity in-house, through computerized databases and
the internet, and none considered access to frontier technical information a difficulty. For
small and mediwn-sized firms, the Indian PTO operates a computerized patent search
facility in the city of Nagper with access to patent specifications from all countries. They
will perform searches and send copies of specifications for a low fee. Thus, there is, if
anything, a negligible gain in additional infmmation disclosure to be expected by the
country's granting of new patent rights.
Will granting product patents speed the arrival of new drug discoveries to the
shelves of Indian phan11acics? This depends on how quickly new drugs are an·iving now,
in the absence of product patents, and whether patentee control will speed or slow this
arrival.
160
With the exception of Cefaclor , for drugs where both dates are known the
introduction lag has been found to be typically four or five years. Since the process of
clinical testing and obtaining marketing approval takes about three years for the first
applicant in India (estimated by the Drugs Controller General) and since executives of
Indian firms stated in interviews that they usually waited to see the extent of a new drug's
acceptance internationally before investing heavily in process development, this implies
very quick imitation by Indian firms. The managing director of Glaxo (India) Ltd., noted
that they had tried to be first into the Indian market with their patented drug Ranatidine
(Zantac ), but were met with seven Indian competitors at the time of launch. Whether the
speed of imitation in recent years can be extrapolated into the future, when more difficult
to copy biotechnology-based drugs become increasingly important, is, of course, again an
open question.
One MNC representative suggested that product patents will increase the access
of Indian consumers to new drugs by pointing to the fact that many 'important drug
therapies' had not been introduced in India at all. However, to put this in context,
consider again the study by Barra! (1990) of NCEs introduced anywhere in the world
from 1975 through 1989. As noted above, his group of experts cllassified 95 of these 775
NCEs as therapeutically innovative. Among the innovative drugs, as of 1990, 31% were
being marketed in fewer than six of the seven largest pharmaceutical markets. In other
words, even restricting attention to new drugs deemed to offer a therapeutic advantage, a
significant portion were not introduced by the patentee in developed country markets that
did grant product patents. It is likely that failures to launch in India are for quite different
reasons than the absence of product patents. One is administrative. The inventor, or an
imitating Indian firm, may have tried to introduce the product but failed to obtain
marketing approval. In India, by law firms are required to show on! y the safety and
efficacy of new drugs in order to obtain marketing approval from the Drugs Controller
General (as in the U.S.). However, according to the Drugs Controller General himself, in
practice they are often also required to show utility, that is, that the new drug is needed.
One company interviewee involved in this process from the industry side also asserted
that this was often required and, further, that new drug applications were frequently
rejected by the government on this basis. If this is the main explanation then changes in
161
intellectual property laws will have little impact. Another explanation lies in possible
hesitation on the part of patent-owning MNCs in launching their patented drugs
themselves, because of their concern about global reference pricing. This was brought up
repeatedly in interviews with executives of MNC subsidiaries as an explanation for
decisions either to delay launches or to never launch their patented pharmaceuticals in
India. This is apparently a particularly important issue for American firms, but most
European !inns also pay attention to global price differentials (the pricing freedom given
to Glaxo's Indian subsidiary, demonstrated in its race to enter the market with Ranatidine,
seems to be a rare exception). For example, Bayer chose not to introduce its patented
drug ciprofloxacin in India because it would have had to sell it at what Bayer viewed as,
at that time, too low of a price. Instead, ciprofloxacin was introduced three years after its
world launch by the Indian firm Ranbaxy Clearly truncation could be part of the story.
Some of these may have ended up being globally launched after 1990. However,
truncation would only affect a few of the more recent NCEs. Danzon (1997) reports that
Glaxo did not launch Imigrarn for several years after obtaining marketing approval in
France because the governmenfinsisted on a low price. Will this issue cause problems for
India once inventors are granted monopoly control over the introduction of new
products? More than seven years after its world introduction and long after the entrance
of a multitude of local producers, Bayer also began marketing ciprofloxacin in India, at a
price about a tenth of that in the U.S. (interview). Since regulatory attention to prices in
developed countries is paid primarily at the time that drugs are initially introduced, it
appears that global price differences become less important over time. Also, like a threat
of non-supply in the face of price regulation, a failure to introduce could be combated
with compulsory licensing (see Section IV). Nevertheless, these remedies do not operate
immediately. A tendency on the part of patent-owning MNCs to delay the introduction of
their innovative drugs in India could mean that, in the future, new drug therapies become
available to Indian consumers more slowly than they would have if the current regime,
which allows imitation, had been retained.
4.7.5 Evidence: Research and Development
In thinking about the possible effects of the introduction of product patents on
investment in R&D, there are three separate issues. First is the efTcct of the incremental
162
returns received by inventors as a result of these new rights on the incentive to invest in
research on projects which are aimed at a global market. Second is the effect on
incentives to invest in projects of particular interest to India. And finally there is the
effect of granting product patents on the amount of pharmaceutical R&D that takes place
in India, either within government or academic institutions, MNC subsidiaries or
domestic finns. Since it is difficult to anticipate the size of the profits which will be
obtained by patentees as a result of product patents and since we do not know very much
about the elasticity of R&D investment in response to increased returns, it is difficult to
guess whether the first effect will be significant. Given the enormous disparity in mean
incomes between the developed countries and the LDCs, and given the small proportion
of higher-income households within the LDCs, the contribution of profits coming from
the LDC markets will probably be initially a quite small addition to total global profits. It
is apparent that expenditure per capita in India compared to a range of other countries is
extremely low. However, this may be set to change. India has a huge population and even
with very low expenditures per capita in 1995 and the 12th largest pharmaceuticals
market iri the world. (And this is with, it is claimed, only 30% of the population
consuming allopathic medicines.) A possible loosening of restrictions on the insurance
market is under discussion in the government and private insurance may be available in
the next few years. One Indian executive said that his firm had an agreement already set
up with an American insurance company interested in entering the Indian market and
suggested that another Indian firm had a similar arrangement with a second American
insurance company. Given the low starting level, there is much scope for increased
pharmaceutical consumption in India as incomes grow and medical insurance becomes
more prevalent. Thus, with a long time horizon, it might be the case that the introduction
of product patent protection in India will have more than a negligible impact on new drug
discovery. It is possible to be more optimistic on the second point. The demand patterns
of consumers in the group of countries now introducing product patents are quite
different from those of the developed countries. For drug therapies relevant to LDCs, the
incremental incentive generated by product patents may be significant even in the short
run. There are two senses in which a drug therapy may be particularly relevant to India
and to the LDCs as a group. First, disease patterns are quite different. Research has
163
shown the diseases for which 99% or more of the global burden is in low- and middle
income countries( where burden is defined as the number of disability adjusted life years,
or DALYs, lost to the disease. This includes years lived with disabilities as well as
premature mortality.) Although India shares the diseases important in developed
countries, and will increasingly as the population grows more wealthy, vast numbers of
Indians also suffer from diseases, such as malaria and leprosy, which the developed
world is largely free ot: 16 Another sense in which particular therapies can be relevant is
in the cosUefficiency tradeoff. Even within disease categories which are also of interest to
developed countries, drug discoveries which have the potential to be very cost effective
but not as effective overall may not be acceptable in those markets and hence not
developed and commercialized in the present environment. Currently almost all research
on drugs for diseases prevalent in the LDCs is done either by internationally-funded
organizations or the military in the developed countries and it is a very small part. Even
within diseases there can be differences in incidence. For example, AIDs cases in
developing countries are the result of HIV which is a subtype different than the subtype
common in the West which is the subject of vast amounts of R&D spending (WHO,
I 996) of world pharmaceutical R&D investment. For example, of the 56 billion dollars
spent on health-related R&D worldwide, only 0.2% is on pneumonia, diarrhoeal diseases
and TB, diseases which between them represent 18% of the global disease burden (WHO,
1996). In Barral's (1990) study of NCEs marketed commercially in the seven major
industrialized markets between 1975 and 1989, only eight of775 were specific to tropical
diseases, and two of these were discovered in U.S. army laboratories. By contrast, the
UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical
Diseases has developed 78 products in the past 19 years, 24 of which are already in use
and of which another 35 are in clinical or field trials (Scrips, 1995). Although purchasing
power in India, and the other LDCs, is low, the sheer size of this potential market may,
once patent protection is available, make investing in drug discovery projects with
primary markets in the LDCs sufficiently profitable that private finns become interested.
The example of orphan drugs may be instructive. In the early I 980s there was discussion
in the U.S. about the problem of drugs which had been discovered but were not being
developed and marketed by finns because they were useful only to a small population of
164
sufferers. They were tenned orphans because of the discoverers' lack of interest in these
unprofitable drug candidates. In 1983, a bill was passed which offered finns seven years
of market exclusivity for drugs with a potential market of fewer than 200,000 patients,
even when a patent would otherwise not be available, as well as subsidies for testing.
Although there is room for abusing this policy by carefully designing target populations
so as to classify a drug as an orphan, there is no doubt that this legislation lead to a surge
in investment in drugs which were legitimate orphans and which would not have been
developed otherwise. In the decade before 1983 there were ten drugs for rare diseases
approved by the U.S FDA In the decade after passage of the Orphan Drug Act, 99 such
drugs were approved, and 189 were reported to be under clinical testing in 1992 (BCG,
1996). Perhaps the most difficult question is the last. Will the introduction of product
patents lead to more R&D being done in India? For MNCs, strong intellectual property
laws are certainly a pre-requisite for the choice to locate pharmaceutical R&D facilities in
a country. A survey of U.S. firms conducted by Edwin Mansfield found that IPRs are
very important to pharmaceutical MNCs when making decisions about R&D locations,
less so for finishing generic drugs (United Nations, 1993). Currently, India fails on this
count. India was the country most frequently cited by corporate respondants as having
intellectnal property laws too weak to permit investment in the chemicals (including
pharmaceuticals) sector (Mansfield, 1994). In recent years, Hoechst has been the only
MNC with a subsidiary doing basic research in India (with a focus on natural products).
The only other example is Ciba-Geigy, which had a basic R&D facility located in India
from 1963-1989. That said, even more than in the case of manufacturing facilities,
granting and enforcing intellectual property rights is likely to be far from sufficient to
attract MNC investment. R&D tends to be quite centralized. For example, Pfizer has
R&D centers outside of the U.S. in only four, developed, countries--the U.K., France,
Germany and Japan compared to manufacturing plants in 65 countries, of which 21 are in
LDCs (Santoro, 1995). It is frequently argued by proponents of the TRIPs accord that
India, once new, WTO-consistent, intellectual property laws are in place, will be very
attractive as a location for R&D because, by locating in India, firms can take advantage
of a sizable pool of low-cost and technically skilled labor to escape part of the great
expense of drug discovery and development. They point to the rapid growth in the Indian
165
software industry, centered in the city of Bangalore, where a very large number of MNCs
have located part of their software development. However, a head office R&D executive
from a pharmaceutical MNC emphasized in an interview that cost is not a main
consideration in their location decisions, even for development research. Further, it is not
even clear that real costs are that much lower in India. Interviewees said that although
customs restrictions on the import of equipment had been eased in recent years, this still
posed a problem. A manager at one linn noted that they have an employee permanently
stationed at the Bombay port to deal with 'time-sensitive' imports such as mice. While
much of the equipment in R&D labs is now available from Indian suppliers, precision
equipment is still imported and the difficulty and time necessary to obtain parts and
servicing on foreign-made equipment was claimed by one interviewee as their biggest
disadvantage in running a research lab. Even labor, while cheaper than in the West, does
not appear greatly so. In one interview, a scientist just retmning from graduate school and
then five years at one of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, when asked about relative
salaries, said that starting salaries were quite different: $4,500 in India against $35-
40,000 for a comparably skilled person in the U.S. His own salary,' however, he judged to
be at least a quarter of the salary of someone at a comparable level in the U.S. In an
interview at another Indian finn the same story emerged. Starting salaries for research
scientists were judged to be about 20% of those in the U.S., but approaching 50% at
higher levels. In many finn interviews it was also noted that salaries for researchers are
increasing quickly. Taken together, the fact that costs are not their prime concern and the
fact that the cost of doing R&D in India does not actually appear to be dramatically lower
than elsewhere suggest that there is no reason to expect that the introduction of product
patents will encourage MNCs to locate R&D facilities for discovery research in India. On
the other hand, the story may well be different for Indian finns. In a paper which
considers the likely response of Indian firms to obtaining the ability to purchase foreign
technologies, Fikkert (1994) estimates that domestic R&D efforts would decline, but to
very modest degree. In line with the efficiency gains to be expected from licensing, he
estimates that the switch to greater reliance on purchased technologies would be
associated with a large increase in the productivity of domestic finns. Looking at the
domestic pharmaceutical sector today, a handful of !inns have already begun increasing
166
their total investment in R&D (from about 1-2% of sales to 5-6% of sales in the past few
years). More significantly, some of them are beginning to allocate a part of that
investment to the search for new molecules rather than imitative process development
research. And there are signs that they will be successful in this new direction. As
discussed in the previous section, the Indian firms have already demonstrated great
expertise at rapidly devising new processes for patent products. A particularly dramatic
example is Ranbaxy's development in 1991, after 20 million dollars and three years of
effort, of a new process for producing Eli Lilly's patented drug cefaclor. In the words of a
Ranbaxy executive, processes were under patent (with Lilly). Since Eli Lilly's product
patent for cefaclor expired in 1992 and the firm was expecting to protect its monopoly
with process patents which were due to expire only in 1994, this gave great scope for a
mutually advantageous agreement between the two companies. A series of 50:50 joint
ventures followed in the wake of Eli Lilly's recognition of Ranbaxy's superior research
capabilities. This was, of course, an example of process development. A few companies
have also been successful in discovering new products. For example, Reddy's Research
Foundation, a· separately. The magnitude of this achievement is brought out by this
comment made by Eli Lilly's Pharmaceuticals President in February 1991, emphazing the
protection offered by a difficult production process and a patent on a late stage
intermediate: "when all factors are considered Ceclor (cefaclor) should 'remain a viable
product for Eli Lilly beyond expiration of the patent"'. And the Research Labs President:
"'The Ceclor synthetic route is so long and so complex' that it will be difficult to
duplicate ... .'a legal end-run seems extremely improbable.'" (quoted in OTA, 1993)
constituted research center established in 1992 which is part of Dr. Reddy's Group, only
works on the discovery of new molecules. In June of 1995 they filed their first two
product applications in the U.S. (anti-cancer and anti-diabetes substances) and now have
ten more patent applications in developed countries. Dabur also has a self-standing
research foundation which is 50% devoted to doing discovery research related to anti
cancer drugs. To date they have submitted two patent applications in the U.S. and two
more in the U.K. (interviews). An important aspect of the R&D being done by MNC
subsidiaries and Indian firms in India is the extent of sub-contracting. Discovering a new
molecule and bringing it to market involves many stages. Sub-contracting allows finns to
167
focus initially on the parts of the process in which they have gained a comparative
advantage. Organizing R&D through networks of research collaborations and joint
ventures is becoming increasingly common with the advent of biotechnology firms.
Commonly, biotechnology finns supply ideas, compounds, therapies, and applied
research outcomes, while large pharmaceutical partners supply complementary research
capabilities (where economies of scale are important), largescale development and
marketing. (See Gambardella, 1995, for examples of the complexity of these networks.)
Most of the Indian subsidiaries of foreign MNCs interviewed said that they did some, and
expected to do more, development work for their home offices. Several were very close
to having their clinical testing results approved by the home office for use in U.S. FDA
submissions. Recently, Roffman-La Roche and Smithkline Beecham have sought
approval from the Indian government to establish wholly-owned subsidiaries for R&D
projects, in the latter case to develop new and existing Beecham vaccines (Government of
India, 1994a and 1995). For an Indian finn taking the first steps towards new molecule
discovery, the ability to lower costs by sub-contracting or by joining up with foreign
firms in research joint ventures, is particularly ·important. A surprising array of
agreements have already been made. For example, Wockhardt just established a joint
venture with Rhein Biotech GmbH, Germany, to do research in India on biotechnology
products. One of Ranbaxy's joint ventures with Eli Lilly will be based in India and
involved in development work.. Cipla undertakes custom synthesis under secrecy
agreements. Dabur is in discussions with a U.K. company about doing development work
for them. Two of the firms involved in discovery research send compounds to Daiichi,
Japan, for screening. Compounds which look promising are pursued by the Indian firm
and may result in a joint patent. In an interesting twist, Reddy's Research Foundation has
an arrangement with a Swiss firm whereby Reddy's sends them interesting compounds
which the Swiss firm then develops. What is not obvious is what the importance of Indian
product patents will be in encouraging this process, given that product patents are already
available to Indian inventors in much of the rest of the world. The cooperative R&D
arrangements described above were made between Indian and foreign finns without
product patents being available in India. Scherer and Weisbrot ( 1994) point out that
Switzerland was a leading originator of important new drugs even in the period before it
168
began granting product patents. Interviewed executives of R&D intensive Indian finns
were all very clear that their target market for new drug discovery research is one
hundred percent global. They are concentrating their efforts on drugs for important
developed country diseases, such as cancer and diabetes, where U.S. FDA marketing
approval is quick and even a moderately important discovery is likely to have a
significant payoff. The availability of patents in India may be important for encouraging
innovation by smaller Indian finns and may facilitate contracting in the development of
products for the local market. The advantage is that it will allow a finn to obtain a
priority date with an Indian patent application at a cost far below a foreign application:
$300-400 in India versus about $6,000 for a U.S. patent (interviews). A government
official in the Dept of Biotechnology (DoB) described how the department had helped
researchers apply for foreign patents (four thus far), in order to help them overcome the
cost hurdle. He noted, however, that for products with a more limited local market, where
a foreign patent would not be useful, the lack of patent protection in India was a
stumbling block in getting innovations to market. Companies interested in
commercializing DoB i1movations were held back because; without patents, the DoB
could not guarantee them exclusivity (Ghosh, 1996).1n the end, however, perhaps the
main reason for thinking that the introduction of product patents in India will increase the
amount of innovative R&D done by Indian firms has nothing to do with the traditional
explanation based on enhanced returns. It is simply that they will soon be prevented from
following a strategy which has been profitable, imitation, and must switch to something
else in order to grow.
4.7.6 Concluding Comments
It is too soon to draw any strong conclusions about what the effects will be of
India's upcoming introduction of product patents for phannaceuticals. In answer to the
question posed in the title: "exploitation of the poor?" the answer is probably no--if
nothing else because the "poor" in India are too poor to consume pharmaceuticals, even
under the current regime. For the 70% or so of the population who currently does not
have access to pharmaceuticals, the introduction of patent protection, and any price
effects that may follow, are irrelevant. We have also seen that, of the drugs currently on
the market, just under ten percent are on-patent in Europe. Extrapolating this percentage
169
into the future, which may itself be questionable, means that even if product patents result
in significantly higher prices, much of the pharmaceutical market will not be affected.
Considering only the part of the market which will be affected by the new regime, there
are a number of reasons for thinking that the low incomes of India's consumers and the
lack of medical insurance will not ensure low prices, as is sometimes suggested. Firstly,
the latter two features are likely to begin to change in the next decade. Historical and
cross-country evidence also does not give confidence that this will be tbe case. And,
perhaps most importantly, patent-owning firms may not be setting prices to maximize
profits in the Indian market. They maximize global profits, and the politics of drug price
regulation may dictate a limit to how low they will be willing to set prices in India. Price
control may also be ineffective in keeping down prices, since patent protection in
combination with both the transfer-price loophole and a possible threat to not supply give
firms non-negligible power in bargaining with the government over the price of patented
drugs. Whatever eventuates, the fact that the industry is very competitive today means
that any monopoly profits obtained by patent-owning firms once product patents become
available can, with reasonable confidence, be attributed to the change in IPR regime.
Indian firms are moving into tbe world generics market and, although the introduction of
product patents will cause them to lose their first -mover advantage, their low
manufacturing costs will continue to give them an advantage in competing for this
market. It may become somewhat less profitable, since speed into the market seems to be
important, but there does not seem to be any reason to expect that they will not be
successful in increasing their participation in the generics sector. The bulk of production
for the domestic market is drugs which are not on-patent. As a result of these two
features, the introduction of product patents should not have a strong adverse affect on
employment in the industry or on the contribution of the phannaceutical sector to the
balance of payments. The positive contribution of intellectual property comes in its
dynamic effect on the creation and diffusion of knowledge. Considering first the
diffusion of information, it appears that Indian finns are well able to access and
infonnation disclosed in patent specifications filed elsewhere. Since most important
phannaccutical innovations will be patented internationally, there is likely to be little or
no additional benefit to be gained by Indians from specifications being filed domestically.
170
In the case of diffusion of products into the market, granting protection may speed
diffusion, for the traditional reason that having a monopoly position makes the process of
adapting a product, getting marketing approval, and introducing it to consumers
prolitable. However, there are also reasons to think that giving patentees control over
introductions may slow down diffusion. Currently Indian firms are quite quick to bring
imitations to the market. An MNC with a new patented drug may delay a launch in India
because of the concern over global price regulations noted above. If, for this reason, they
hesitate to introduce a drug at a low price in the initial years of global marketing, with
imitators prevented from entering because of the new patent law, innovative
pharmaceuticals may actually become available to Indian consumers more slowly.
Finally, there are several issues regarding the effect of product patents on discovery
research. It seems unlikely that, at the current levels of income in India, the profits to be
made from having monopoly rights in that country will add substantially to the profits
already available in the world for drugs which are of global interest. However, as
discussed in the paper, very little R&D is done to develop drug therapies for the set of
diseases which aie relevant to Indian consumers but which are not important to
consumers in developed countries. Almost all of it is done by government-funded
development institutions or by the military. For these drugs, the introduction of product
patents in India could create a substantial incremental increase in profits and encourage
more commercial interest in their discovery and development. The final question was
whether the introduction of product patents will contribute to more R&D being done in
India. Although strong intellectual property rights are important to MNCs in deciding
where to locate R&D facilities, given the centralized nature of R&D and fact that costs
are not the paramount concern there does not seem to be any compelling reason for them
to locate in India even after product patents are available. Further, a number of MNCs are
already increasing their use of local subsidiaries to do development work. Although
stronger intellectual property rights may make the Indian environment more appealing to
MNCs as a location for R&D, it is unlikely that product patents will make a dramatic
difference to their choices. There is more reason to think that the upcoming introduction
of product patents will make a difference to the amount and type of R&D being done by
Indian firms. Already the larger firms are increasing their total R&D expenditure as a
17 I
percentage of sales and they are beginning to move in the direction of new molecule
discovery rather then concentrating solely on development research. Given that there is
already patent protection available to Indian inventors in the rest of the world, if there is a
role for Indian product patents in encouraging this process it is not in the incentive effect,
but rather the fact that the strategy of imitation is being closed off. While some firms may
not make the transition, signs thus far suggest that a number of Indian firms will
successfully weather the transition and come out as more innovative companies.
4.8 Technology Management in Pharmaceutical Industry
Pharmaceutical Industry, globally, is a high value industry due to the sheer nature
of the industry. It has been estimated to have a value of around $630.7 billion with a
growth rate of 6.6% in the year 2007. Presently the growth in the industry has been
noticed in the Asia-Pacific countries while the developed countries have witnessed a
slack in the growth. If we make strategic groups in the pharmaceutical industry, then
there would be two groups:
- Research Based Group: Companies which form this gr~up are those who spend around
15-20% of their sales revenue into the Research and Development of new drugs.
Consequently the price of their drugs is also very high. They become the owners of their
products through patents. Some ofthese companies are Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Eli Lilly.
- Generics Group: Companies in this group do not spend much on the Research and
Development of new drugs. Their expenditure on R&D is in the range of 3-4% and the
price charged by them is also low. Most of the Indian companies come in this group.
4.8.1 The Industry Value Chain
Through its massive R&D investment, the research-based industry represents our
society's best hope to fight, defeat and eventually eradicate a wide range of illnesses that
are costing a fortune - not to mention pain and suffering. For developing a new
innovative drug it takes about $800 million and about 15-16 years time period on an
average. Of this amount only half the. cost is actually incurred by the company, the rest is
the opportunity cost of the capital invested in developing the drug. This cost incurred is
directly reflected in the pricing of the new drug. This has prompted major phannaccutical
companies to base their research and development centers in third world countries who
172
have the necessary infrastructure. It is important to identify the current situation in major
markets of the world namely the US market and the European market. Some of the major
issues and questions related to drug development process are cost of developing new
drugs, role of government, and performance of the drug industry and the profitability of
the different R&D activities. An innovative way to improve efficiency of R&D activities
is through decision analysis for selecting the right projects so as to derive the maximum
benefit from it. This will also help in reducing the cost of drug development an will
induce companies to go for more R&D spending in the future. Benchmarking has been
' adopted, by many companies, in the field of operational excellence in their production
units located in different parts of the world. This makes the cost of producing a new drug
much cheaper and in a way absorbs the high cost incurred in the discovery stage and the
clinical trial stage. Big pharmaceutical companies should partner with small biotech firms
for upstream research stages. To give more freedom to their R&D wings, many Indian
companies have gone for its separation from the other operations of the firm.
· Again there is a correlation between the amount of research and development
spending a firm makes and the profit margins which they derive from it. The trend has
been explored for two global firms which show an increase in R&D spending also
increases the firm's profitability. The contract research opportunities available in the
Asian countries are being tapped by many western Pharmaceutical majors though
outsourcing. This has looked in seriously as an increased contract research spending by
international giants of the pharmaceutical industry acts as a source of earning the crucial
foreign exchange and at the same time producing cheaper drugs quickly.
4.8.2 Pharmaceutical Market in United States
Let us have a look at the current scenario in the pharmaceutical industry in the
United States which is the largest market for the advantages of low cost at both research
stage and clinical trial stage, accessibility of a large population base and a good
infrastructure. The Asian countries also have a challenge of giving consistent quality in
the R&D activities outsourced to them and improving on their infrastructure. Another
challenge is in the implc1nentation of TRIPS in the Asian countries by their respective
governments, which are being phannaceutical products. Standard & Poor's industry
173
report forecasts low to mid single digit top line gains and high single digit or low double
digit earnings per share (EPS) growth for both 2007 and 2008. Sales gains, particularly in
the second half of 2007, have continued to reflect price increases and momentum from a
modest number of new products introduced in 2006 and early 2007, while EPS (Earnings
per Share) is benefiting from aggressive cost cutting initiatives and common share
buybacks. Favorable foreign currency exchange rates also have added to performance.
Given the dollar's weakness against the pound and fhe euro in recent quarters, S&P
expects foreign exchange to boost the average top line by 3% to 4% for the sector in
2007. The pharmaceutical sector currently is of interest to investors primarily because of
anticipated positive EPS trends over the coming quarters and, to a lesser extent, because
of its recession resistant characteristics. The business model that spurred unprecedented
growth in the pharmaceutical industry since the early 1990s has changed. The shift has
been occurring slowly for several years, but its impact became obvious in 2007.
Throughout the 1990s, pharmaceutical companies concentrated their R&D and sales
efforts on selling small-molecule drugs to mass markets. Today, however, they
increasingly rely on more customized biological products that help ·smaller patient
populations with harder-to-treat medical conditions. The US market grew 7.7% in the 12
months through June 2007, faster than any country except Spain, China, and Brazil, each
of which has a much smaller base. As of October, IMS Health was forecasting 2007 US
growth in the range of 5% to 6%, bringing the market size to $285 billion to $295 billion.
Most companies are also in the midst of realigning their R&D operations. They are
concerned about the lack of productivity in their current R&D operations and by
increasingly stringent demands for data by government regulators and third-party payers.
A 2007 study by McKinsey & Co., a consulting finn, estimated that the average R&D
spend per FDA approval (including small molecules and biologics) climbed from $660
million in 2000 to $1.626 billion in 2005, largely as a result of declining success rates. If
companies could even partially improve the attrition rates in late-stage R&D, their
relative costs would plummet, making a huge impact. Financially, drug manufacturing is
a high-risk business: for every 5,000 compounds discovered, only one ever reaches the
phannacist's shelf. The odds against making a profit are steep as well: less than a third of
marketed drugs achieve enough commercial success to recoup their R&D investments.
174
When a drug maker launches a new compound that is' widely accepted in the
marketplace, the economic rewards can be immense. This is the primary reason for the
industry's hefty profit margins. R&D is the lifeblood of the phannaceutical industry.
Drug makers become industry leaders by spending large sums on R&D in order to
produce a steady stream of successful products. Because ethical phannaceuticals are
patent-protected only for a finite number of years, the pharmaceutical industry needs to
continually find new drugs to ensure future growth. Firms with R&D programs that
falter, end up struggling, particularly if they face generic competition for their key drugs.
4.8.3 Pharmaceutical Market in Europe
To take a look at the European market, in 2005 alone, the pharmaceutical industry
in Europe invested over €21 billion in R&D, which accounts for 18% of the whole EU
business R&D expenditure. Huge as industry's R&D investment is, however, it is by no
means a guaranteed path to success. Due to the growing understanding of the scientific
basis of diseases, the complexity of regulatory requirements and "administrative" delays,
it now takes an average of 12-13 years to tum a new promising compound into an
approved medicinal product. The average medicine has then about 8-1 0 years of
effective patent protection left by the time it reaches the pharmacy shelves before facing
stiff generic competition. The result is that each new medicine now costs in the range of
€900 million to develop, that half the medicines that reach the final stage of clinical trials
fall at that hurdle and that only three out of ten marketed medicines produce revenues that
match or exceed average R&D costs. With a strategy that above all stimulates R&D in
Europe and rewards innovation, the research based industry will not only be able to
improve healthcare in Europe, bring new innovative medicines faster to European
patients, it will also contribute to the Lisbon objective of economic growth, to more and
better jobs, and therefore guarantee high living standards for current and future
generations of European citizens.
4.9 STUDY ON R&D MANAGEMENT BY PFIZER
To take a look at the how the R&D expenditure is carried out, consider Pfizer, the
largest phannaceutical company in the world. Its pipeline of new medicines in
development is the largest in the phannaceutical industry, focusing on a broad range of
175
unmct medical needs spanning l 0 Therapeutic Areas. Pfizer invests more than $7 billion
annually in the research and development of new products across more therapeutic areas
than any other company in our industry. Relying on the strength of its pipeline and
scientific talent, Pfizer has generated a steady stream of breakthroughs over the years. Its
researchers continue to work around the clock and around the globe to ensure the best
medicines for our patients in the years to come. The figure below indicates the number of
discovery project which were in various stages of clinical trial in the year 2006-07.
Source: www.pfizer.com
4.10 Decision Analysis for Selecting R&D Projects
Drug development can be regarded as a process in which a skeptical regulator
mandates the sponsor to provide rigorous evaluations of pharmaceuticals so that the
regulator can decide on their value. Nevertheless, much of the value added is through
development of information ratherthan product. The complex decision-making that
attends drug development, together with the evaluation of attendant options, is often
handled in a crude and ad-hoc manner with minimal analysis. In choosing which drugs to
develop, many companies rely on inadequate indices, awarding points for probability of
success, time to market and earning potential and perhaps subtracting them for cost to
develop. ln fact, no index based on totals alone can capture adequately the options open
to management in developing any project. It is necessary to study and reflect the cost and
probability architecture of projects to do this. Consider a simple case of two drugs about
to enter phase II. The expected time to market, if successful, is five years in each case,
the cost to develop including launch costs are identically US$440 million and expected
financial returns (having subtracted costs of drugs and selling), if successful, are
identically US$1.25 billion discounted. If the drugs are registered, market success is
considered to be inevitability. The probability that the drugs will make it to registration is
identically 0.36. Such figures are often taken to be adequate to evaluate the interest in
developing the drug and, that being so, it is obvious that any method that uses such totals
will judge the two projects as being equally valuable. A crude calculation that might be
attempted would be to estimate the expected return as:
0.36 x USS/.25 bi/lio11- US$440 millio11 = US$450 millio11 - US$440 million = USS/0
million
176
Suggesting not only that there is nothing to choose between the two projects, but
also that they have little value, offering an expected (but uncertain) net return of US$1 0
million for an outlay of US$440 million.
This calculation is inappropriate, however. It assumes that, whether or not a
project fails, all development costs have to be paid. However, development costs in phase
Jli will not be paid unless phase II is successful. To evaluate these projects, the cost and
probability architecture needs to be studied in closer detail. Suppose that the situation is
that project A's costs are expected to be US$50 million in phase II and US$390 million in
phase III. On the other hand, project B will cost US$! 00 million in phase II and only
US$340 million in phase III. Project A has a Therefore, the expected return is:
US$450 million- US$206 million= US$244 million/or A; and
US$450 million- US$406 million= US$44 million for B.
Not only are both these projects more valuable than it appeared at first sight, but they are
quite different in terms of value.
In short, the pharmaceutical industry is not just suffering from an innovation
deficit but also from an information and implementation deficit. Nevertheless, there is
much in the way of quantitative methodology for decision-making that is available and
being under-utilized.
4.11. Achieving Operational Excellence
The above mentioned decision analysis has to be coupled with very high
operational excellence while manufacturing them across various facilities around the
globe. Almost all multinational pharmaceutical companies have launched efficiency and
continuous improvement initiatives. Global competition, increasing cost pressure, shorter
product life cycles and a more and more complex production program have a strong
impact on the industry and its production sites. To achieve better results some
benchmarks have to be established which was done by a survey called "Operational
Excellence in the Phannaceutical Industry" (OPEXPharma) is being conducted by
Institute of Technology Management, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
With the help of this a company can compare implementation of 6 Sigma, Lean
Thinking and other basic principles of Operational Excellence for one particular
manufacturing site with its own average and also with the industry average. They can
177
also see the difference in different operational excellence attribute's cost as compared to
the top perfonner in the industry and then can try to achieve the same.
Source: 2008 Benchmarking Survey by Institute of Technology Management, University
of St. Gallen
4.11.1 Partnership with Academic Organization & Small Bio-technology
firms
As the biotechnological paradigm is progressively replacing the chemical one, the
biotech startups are the principal engine of R&D activity. They discover new molecules
and impulse drug innovation. Still, big pharmaceutical companies have some advantages ,
such as benefiting from higher funds to support development of new drugs, scale and
scope economies in R&D.
Partnerships between small and big fmns are developed on a win-win basis.
Consequently, the size of the firm is a moving target. Innovation is to be linked with
industrial, technological networks. Small firms are cooperating and so increasing returns
to scale may appear at the level of the research networks, strategic alliances or bio
clusters. Industrial policies stimulating innovation as a competitive edge should then
concentrate on creating strong incentives for small firms to cooperate.
The competitive process in bioteclmological research, which is today oriented
towards forming partnerships, aims to eliminate vertically organized firms that research,
develop, manufacture and market their own drugs alone and to rationalize organizational
structures in order to make each link in the value chain effective. As a matter of fact, all
kinds of research (whether carried out in small finns or in hierarchical organizations)
play a role. Thus, in the conception of industrial collaboration, a distribution of roles is
beginning to emerge that relies on the coexistence of two fields of creation, that of
technical imagination and that of development. In fact, a sort of division of the innovative
work is developing, favoring academic organizations for the fundamental research,
biotechnology firms for the upstream research stages and large firms for the routine and
costly stages of development and marketing. Therefore, biotechnological companies find
results in their applied research, whereas pharmaceutical finns manage the stages of
large-scale commercial development.
178
4.11.2 De-Merging NCE Operations into Separate Companies to Scale
Up R&D Activities
Top Indian phanna companies are now de-merging their NCE (New Chemical
Entity) operations into separate companies to scale-up their R&D activities, achieve
better focus and hedge against risks. They are stepping out to leverage the expertise
gained in reverse engineering of patented molecules, and build capabilities in original
research - targeting new chemical entities (NCE) and novel drug delivery system
(NODS). The trend is catching up fast and already deep-pocket pharma majors such as Dr
Reddy's Laboratories, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries have separated their NCE activities into separate companies.
Experts feel it's the logical extension for the R&D activities ever since India
recognized the product patent regime since 2005. The R&D operations of Indian
pharmaceutical companies have reached an inflexion point that could catapult them into
the big league globally. Their expertise in early discovery- phase I & II clinical trials
- is most useful, especially when combined with the late discovery competencies of
intemational pharmaceutical majors. R&D for drug discovery is a capital-intensive
activity. Each step of the discovery process is steeped with uncertainty. A risk-and
reward sharing mechanism can therefore help unleash synergies and enable both partners
to maximize the value of their investments. In this regard, free and standalone NCE
companies are best positioned to realize gains [8] because of the inherent flexibilities in
their business model. The de-merger also helps in getting more funding and expanding
the R&D activities better.
4.12 STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE
Nowadays, bio phannaceutical corporations are facing serious inefficiencies in
their drug discovery process. Undoubtedly, research is the step in which substantial risks
are being taken. During this process, researchers develop tests to screen libraries of
chemical compounds against therapeutic targets, evaluate the amount of a drug required
to effectively treat the disease, study the extent to which a drug interacts only with the
target, assess the presence and significance of any harmful side effects and design the
way the drug is going to be administered to patients. It is generally agreed that efficiency,
productivity and quality are the main drivers for the phannaceutical industry. However,
179
there is a tendency to underestimate the impact that R&D operations, project
prioritization and partnership strategies have in the company output.
4.12.1 Research & Development Operations
Research and Development operations constitute a big issue in the operating
model of pharmaceutical companies. There is an unmet need for high throughput assays
to be used in the validation of the therapeutic targets. If that problem is solved, then the
drug discovery process can change from a linear process to an iterative process in which
target validation runs in parallel with drug discovery or drug optimization activities.
4.12.2 Project Prioritization:
Project prioritization is concerned with allocating the company resources
according to the importance of each project. Unfortunately, project prioritization is not
being carried out in the best way possible. It is often used to track resource utilization
rather than forecasting or modeling which is the better way to fit each project into the
business model of the company.
4.123 Partnership Strategies:
Pharmaceutical companies should integrate through cooperative research ; the
critical mass needed in the vital areas of drug development . With such partnerships
biopharmaceuticals can experiment emerging technologies before bringing them inhouse.
The idea is shifting from straightforward contracts and licenses to 'invasive' deals in
which people, technology and strategies are shared.
4.13 OUTSOURCING- An Effective Way to Reduce R&D Costs
A growing trend in R&D is that of outsourcing. Outsourcing enables companies
to reduce overall costs, cover gaps in capacity and improve their skill base. It also allows
them to concentrate their in-house efforts on those patts of the R&D process that are most
cmcial to their objectives. An increasing number of companies have sought
collaborations with other companies in order to spread the risks and costs involved in
drug development and also to gain access to new technologies and expertise that can
drive innovation. As a result, biophannaceutical companies have begun to pay more
attention to alliance management in order to monitor this process. Achieving a successful
partnership depends on the participating organizations co-operating in setting up systems
180
and processes that will advance technical breakthroughs for the project and encourage
cross-talk between the personnel involved. A particular area for collaborations has been
the biotechnology (biotech) sector. Although it is a relatively young sector, the biotech
industry promises to deliver many benefits, such as medical treatment tailored to the
individual patient's biological make-up. Deals of this nature give smaller companies the
finance to carry on with their R&D and for the larger companies it has the benefit of
supplementing their new drug pipelines.
4.13.1 ASIA- The Emerging Pharmaceutical Hub
The large number of patent expirations, decreasing R&D productivity and high
costs of drug development are forcing big pharmaceutical companies to outsource their
R&D operations to other locations. Asia is proving to be the most preferred destination to
carry out their drug development activities. Availability of a vast patient population, low
costs, R&D workforce and a favorable regulatory environment are the main driving
forces to transform Asia into the hub of R&D activities. A number of Contract Research
Organizations {CROs) have set up shop in Asia to provide trial monitoring, project
management, data management, safety reporting, drug distribution and central laboratory
services. Many top-notch western multinational companies have already moved their
R&D operations to Asian countries including Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer and Novartis.
India is also one of the most preferred Asian countries for R&D activities. Easy
availability of patient pool, diverse disease profiles in the patient population, an estimated
cost savings of 50 percent in Phase I studies and 60 percent in Phase II & III studies and
well-equipped institutions with skilled professionals are the major driving forces behind
this trend. The country has also become TRIPS compliant since the year 2005, which also
makes its phannaceutical industry more attractive.
The Chinese phannaceutical market is one of the fastest growing in the world. It
is estimated to be the fifth largest by 2010 and third largest by 2020. The country offers
many advantages like economical costs and huge patient population. As compared to the
West, the cost of carrying out clinical trials in China is 15% lesser for Phase I and 20
percent cheaper for Phase IVIII . China also has the advantage of a cheap and educated
R&D workforce.
181
Problem Areas: In spite of the Asian R&D doing exceptionally well, there are
concerns galore like lack of adequate skills and infrastructure in many areas of R&D,
imprecise documentation systems, ambiguities in the interpretation and implementation
of global regulatory and intellectual property protection standards and issues on
maintenance of confidentiality. While the region is known for its economical costs, there
are concerns about the quality aspects.
Therefore, Asia needs to strike the right balance between quality and economics
m cost. Concerted efforts are needed from the pharmaceutical industry, academic
institutions and regulatory bodies.
4.13.2 OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIA
Soaring drug discovery development times, prolonged regulation-mandated
testing, complex review processes, rapidly escalating R&D expenditures and competition
are hurting the margins of pharmaceutical companies. In an attempt to improve falling
revenues, the pharmaceutical industry has resorted to outsourcing of high-end services
such as drug discovery and development to inexpensive but highly skilled destinations in
Asia.
India has emerged as a preferred destination for outsourcing research services
owing to its low cost manufacturing, lower cost of R&D personnel, lower capital and
operational costs for quality infrastructure of international standards. Technology
developments are happening at a bewildering pace. Such advances not only create new
market opportunities but also set the platform for stronger collaborative framework for
discovery, and development. The end-result will only mean more business to India.
"While the climate is ripe for cross-disciplinary team research and scientific exchange
flourish, challenges surface while handling the overwhelming amounts of data generated
in modem research and their ownership rights", cautioned Analysts. Data exclusivity is
the key to attracting foreign investments in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. However,
this would require political will and resources to improve institutions and train personnel
in-charge of implementing IPR.
182
4.14 FUTURE SCENARIO OF GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRY & COST BENEFIT CALCULATION FOR INDIA
Of all the opportunities for global pharmaceutical companies in present scenario,
outsourcing the clinical development phase of the R&D process appears the most
promising. With a large population and world class medical skills, this outsourcing
service segment is developing rapidly and with patent protection no longer a hurdle, a
fresh look at this segment is warranted. Including India in the clinical development
outsourcing network presents a four fold benefit - it is the most immediate opportunity
with the greatest potential benefit in the shortest possible time addressing the most
pressing issue today.
Source: A white paper from Deloitte Life Sciences and Health Care, Deloitte Consulting,
Zurich written by Dr. Satish Acharya
An Example to Illustrate the Cost Advantage of India
Two approaches were taken to estimate the savings by time and cost by
outsourcing clinical trials to India. In the first approach the authors took widely accepted
estimates that a clinical trial costs an average $ 30,000 a day and lasts an average 6.6
years, and that outsourcing to India could save half the time and cost. In the second
approach they took a more generic view that bringing a molecule to market has crossed a
billion dollars in recent times, and that overall half the costs of clinical trials can be saved
by outsourcing to India
Source: A white paper from Deloitte Life Sciences and Health Care, Deloitte Consulting,
Zurich written by Dr. Satish Acharya
4.14.1 GROWTH SEGMENTS TO BE FOCUSSED BY INDIAN
PHARMA INDUSTRY
A report by Care Research on the Indian Phannaceutical Industry (!PI) shows an !PI
Value Road which enlists the various value opportunities for growth of Indian
phannaceutical companies. The !PI Value Road attempts to establish a growth path for
Indian pharmaceutical companies by identifying six growth segments in increasing order
of perceived value that can be generated by following strategies focused on a particular
segment. The segments identified are:
183
Bulk-drugs
Domestic formulations
Exports to non regulated markets
Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS)
Exports to regulated markets and
New Chemical Entity [NCE] research
It is also a common understanding that the growth of the Indian pharmaceutical
companies in the domestic market gets restricted with the MNCs introducing newer
patented drugs in the country. Under this scenario, the growth for the formulation
companies is likely to come from the generics opportunity in the regulated markets and
geographic expansion in the semi/non regulated markets. The value of drugs going off
patent in regulated markets is estimated at US$ 70-80 billion [14] during the next five
years and this represents a huge opportunity for Indian pharmaceutical companies to
establish their presence in these markets.
The investment in R&D is also on the rise as it has become important for Indian
companies to start innovating new drugs in order to ensure long terin sustainable growth
and remain competitive at the global level. Indian companies have invested in New
Chemical Entity (NCE) research and are scouting for global partners for pursuing
collaborative research.
4.14.2 SUPPORTING ROLE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS IN
INDIA
As we have seen from the above, the global phannaceutical companies are
increasingly outsourcing and off shoring their discovery research, clinical testing and
manufacturing functions. High quality service delivery coupled with greater cost
competitive offered by Indian companies has catapult India among the preferred off
shoring destinations for global phanna majors.
To assist Indian pharmaceutical industry gamer large share of the upcoming
global opportunities, the Govemment of Madhya Pradesh (GOMP) intend to assist the
development of a phannaceutical cluster in the State. The cluster would support all kind
of phanna companies engaged in manufacturing, research, or clinical functions, large or
small, across the entire pharmaceutical value chain. The proposed cluster would be
184
comprehensive in nature. It would encompass firms of all size and types engaged in
various manufacturing and research activity, key support functions and various other
facilities of specific and generic use at a single geographic location . The cluster format
would extend various benefits to the tenants in terms of synergies of operations and
realization of various growth avenues arising out of such a format.
Due to changing business dynamics in the global phannaceutical industry,
substantial opportunities are emerging across the entire pharmaceutical value chain for
Indian companies to tap. There is significant potential for establishing FDA approved
API's and formulation units, integrated R&D centers, preclinical research centers etc. in
the Country.
Keeping in view the clustering tendency of pharmaceutical companies around the
location of strategic importance, there is huge scope for creating world class
pharmaceutical cluster in the country.
4.15 Implementation of Technology Managemnt
l. Global Technology (R&D) Management
It can be inferred from the above study that through its massive R&D investment,
the research-based industry represents our society's best hope to fight, defeat and
eventually eradicate a wide range of illnesses that are costing a fortune - not to
mention pain and suffering. It has been assumed that companies with high R&D
expenditures will be the most innovative and productive, but the relationship has been
shown to be much more complex. This is clear from the fact that although R&D
investment by the industry has been on the increase, the number of novel drugs
reaching the global market has been on the decline. However, the tendency to
maintain a high level of spending on R&D seems set to continue. This is because it is
believed that greater expenditure on R&D will translate into easier access to the new
technologies of genomics, high throughput screening (HIS) and combinatorial
chemistry (CC).
Looking at the relation between sales revenue and R&D spending of two global
phannaceutical companies - GSK and Pfizer- we see that there is a positive cmTelation
between the revenue and R&D spending for both the companies for most of the years.
The years when there is a negative correlation, it has been so that either some of the drugs
185
development had to be abandoned at later stage or some earlier investments proved to be
successful in the current year.
Source: Annual reports of last 5 years for Pfizer and GSK
As the biotechnological paradigm is progressively replacing the chemical one, the
biotech startups are the principal engine of R&D activity. They discover new molecules
and impulse drug innovation. In fact, a sort of division of the innovative work is
developing, favouring academic organisations for the fundamental research,
biotechnology firms for the upstream research stages and large firms for the routine and
costly stages of development and marketing.
Project Selection and decision analysis is of vital importance which can have a
direct impact on the profitability in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Drug development can
be regarded as a process in which a skeptical regulator mandates the companies to
provide rigorous evaluations of hantanu pharmaceuticals so that the regulator can decide
on their value. Nevertheless, much of the value added is through development of
information rather than product.
Of all the opportunities for global pharmaceutical companies in present sceniuio,
outsourcing the clinical development phase of the R&D process appears the most
promising. In an attempt to improve falling revenues, the pharmaceutical industry has
resorted to outsourcing of high-end services such as drug discovery and development to
inexpensive but highly skilled destinations in Asia.
2. Opportunities for the Asian countries.
Especially in Indian context, with growing outsourcing from global companies along
with present and future strategies for major India pharmaceutical companies. The
large number of patent expirations, decreasing R&D productivity and high costs of
drug development are forcing big pharmaceutical companies to outsource their R&D
operations to other locations. Asia is proving to be the most preferred destination to
carry out their drug development activities. With a large population and world class
medical skills, this outsourcing service segment is developing rapidly and with patent
protection no longer a hurdle, a fresh look at this segment is warranted in countries
like India and China. Many top-notch western multinational companies have already
186
moved their R&D operations to Asian countries including Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer
and Novartis.
The !PI Value Road attempts to establish a growth path for Indian
pharmaceutical companies by identifying six growth segments in increasing order of
perceived value that can be generated by following strategies focused on a particular
segment. The segments identified are Bulk-drugs, Domestic formulations, Exports to
non regulated markets, Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS),
exports to regulated markets and New Chemical Entity [NCE] research.
The investment in R&D is also on the rise as it has become important for
Indian companies to start innovating new drugs in order to ensure long term
sustainable growth and remain competitive at the global level. Indian companies have
invested in New Chemical Entity (NCE) research and are scouting for global partners
for pursuing collaborative research. Many pharma majors are now de-merging their
NCE operations into separate companies to scale-up their R&D activities achieve
better focus and hedge against risks. The trend is catching up fast and already deep
pocket pharma majors such as Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Ranbaxy Laboratories,
NicholasPiramal India Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries have separated their NCE
activities into separate companies. This helps in getting more funding and expanding
the R&D activities better.
4.15.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
I. Pharmaceutical companies should re-evaluate the idea that 'Big is Better' and
integrate through cooperative research the critical mass needed in the vital areas of drug
development. With that kind of partnerships biopharmaceuticals can experiment
emerging technologies before bringing them in-house. The idea is shifting from
straightforward contracts and licenses to 'invasive' deals in which people, technology and
strategies are shared.
2. In choosing which drugs to develop, it is necessary to study and reflect the cost
and probability architecture of projects. Many calculations assume that, whether or not a
project fails,all development costs have to be paid. However, development costs in phase
187
III will not be paid unless phase II is successful. So by adopting this model of decision it
can be ascertained as to which project is going to be profitable for the firm.
3. There is an unmet need for high throughput assays to be used in the validation
of the therapeutic targets. If that problem is solved, then the drug discovery process can
change from a linear process to an iterative process in which target validation runs in
parallel with drug discovery or drug optimization activities.
4. If companies could even partially improve the attrition rates in late-stage R&D,
their relative costs would plummet, making a huge impact.
5. Due to changing business dynamics in the global pharmaceutical industry,
substantial opportunities are emerging across the entire pharmaceutical value chain for
Indian companies to tap. There is significant potential for establishing FDA approved
API' s and formulation units, ntegrated R&D centers, preclinical research centers etc. in
the country.
4.16 Impact of Research and Development on Indian Pharmaceutical
Industry -Post 2005
After 2005, a wide scope for the Indian pharmaceutical industries in the world
market is being observed. The players who have their own strong R&D activities as well
as significant domestic and international business will have an edge over others. A few
companies such as Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Orchid Chemicals, and Lupin
Chemicals have already shifted their focus and taken active measures for innovation of
medicines since 1994, when India signed in WTO.
According Mr. Ramesh Chopra, M. D., Facts For You Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,
one can say that: "The next few years will see a variety of changes in the Indian phanna
industry. The industry will need to adopt i !self to do well in India and in global market.
The Indian phanna industry will flourish after 2005.
A FICCJ (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) survey on
the state of capital markets shows that the pharmaceutical and power sectors will be the
most favoured sectors by investors in the coming years, while there wiii be decline in
FMCG scrips.
Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers are one of the lowest cost producers of
drugs in the world. With a scalable labour force, Indian manufacturers can produce drugs
188
at 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the cost in the rest of the world. In some cases, this is as
low as 90 per cent. This is a good sign according to researcher as investment in R & D of
pharmaceutical companies is increasing in order to compete globally in new product
patent regime & so they will be required to raise more funds.
Source: I. http://www.finsights.com/article29.html (Facts For You Survey)
Source: 2. http://www.hinduonnet.com (The Hindu Business Line)
Indian phanna is adopting altern alive business models to navigate competition
and opportunity. India is well positioned to attract large global pharmacies with
competitive costs & improving IPR protection Indian pharma companies shifting from
business-driven research to research-driven business Global pharma's key debates to
focus on Value and Pricing, Innovation and Productivity, Compliance and Risk.
According to Ernst & Young's Report released in July 2004, "India is recognized as
global pharmaceutical outsourcing hub". Value and Pricing, Innovation and Productivity
and Compliance and Risk are the three core issues facing global pharma today.
The Report has identified India as an emerging hub for collaborative and
outsourced. Says Jainij Purandare, chairman, Ernst & Young India, "Several Indian
Pharma companies are now holding on to their own on the world stage. Our pool of
trained chemists, excellent track record of innovation and US FDA approved
manufacturing facilities enable local players to offer significant benefits in the drug
development process. "
According to the report, "many global companies are confronted by a value crisis
as they try to sustain a business model based on high costs of manufacturing, R&D,
Marketing and sales, increasing regulatory scrutiny and reimbursement pressures.
Countries that can combine lower cost manufacturing with adequate regulatory.
Protection of intellectual property are well positioned to attract large phannaceutical
Companies, India being a prime example." Approximately 30-50 per cent cost saving
Opp01tunity is possible in India, it adds.
"We are seeing a fundamental shift in Indian companies' approach from business
Driven research to an increasing focus on research-driven business," says Utkarsh
Palnitkar, Emst & Young India's Health sciences Industry leader.
Source: . http://www.ey.com
189
(Global Pharmaceutical Report 2004- Ernst & Young)
· In the changing Landscape Indian companies are adopting a combination of
alternative business Models to navigate competition and opportunity. According to Ernst
& Young's report these includes
a) Focusing on export led growth through subsidiaries or acquisitions in high Margin
regulated markets.
b) Bolstering NCE research capabilities.
c) Partnering across the value chain with multinationals through licensing,
collaborative R&D or co-marketing arrangements.
d) Contract research and manufacturing
According to Mr. Srikant Panigrahy of Xavier Institute of Management,
Bhubaneswar, one of the major concerns of India after becoming a member of World
Trade Organization (WTO) is adopting Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) and Product Patents in Pharmaceutical Industry. Many economists urge that
there· will be a steep increase in price, more investment in R&D due to product
patents and a shut down of large number of small scale industries.4 Multinational
companies of India have started preparing for the post-GATT era (after 151 Jan.2005). But
there are medium and small sized companies, who although having an urge to innovate
something are unable to set up their own research and development units as well as
regulatory affairs department due to high cost. Infact, many of them are not clear about
the TRIPS agreement. Out of the 20,000 pharmaceutical industries, there are more than
19,600 medium and small-scale industries in India. Government of India has recently said
that small-scale units are backbone of India and they should be protected at any cost in
the post-GAIT era.
Source: http://home.ximb.ac.inl-u503002/ (" WTO and its implication m Phanna
industry" Paper Presented by: Srikant Panigrahy, FPM, XIMB)
This paper discusses several aspects related to Indian phannaceutical industry and
identifies a few areas of study relating to managerial challenges, which will be faced by
medium and small-scale companies who are fighting for their survival in the post-GA TI
era.
190
Mr. J P Ghose Dastidar General Manager - Dabur India Limited carries a
view on impact of patent regime on pharmaceutical industry's Research and
Development as:
"To establish an identity in the International market, Research and Development
activities have to be strengthened with substantial investment by Indian finns. As a result
of the availability of the patents in drugs and medicines, Multinational companies will not
be interested to establish separate R&D centres in India. If fact, it will be difficult for
domestic companies to be able to match multinational companies potential in R&D
sector, sales turnover and world-wide infrastructure for patenting and promotion of their
products. Further to achieve significant performance on the basic R & D front in India,
Government will have to come forward in a big way to support public and private efforts
on a long term basis".
Dr. Saji Nair, faculty member of Amrita School Business, Coimbatore, has
done exploratory study on the topic "Globalization of R&D in the Indian
Pharmaceutical Sector". Dr. Saji Nair has published in 2004; "Recent Trends in
Globalization of R&D: The Case of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry", in Delhi Business
Review, Vol.5, No.2, pp.lll-116.
Source: http://www.shilpabichitra.com/shilpa2000/wbartl5.htrn
Source: www.arnrita.edu/publications/ arnritarpan/arnritarpan-dec2k5.pdf
4.16.1 The Pharmaceutical Research and Development Committee
(PRDC) Report charts out Roadmap to Transform India into a
knowledge Power as detailed under.
I. The Phannaceutical Research and Development Committee (PRDC) was set up
under the chainnanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, Director General, CSIR to study and
identify the measures needed to strengthen R & D base of the Indian phannaceutical
industry. The PRDC had submitted the PRDC REPORT to the Minister of Chemicals &
Fertilizers, Government of india, Shri Suresh Prabhu on December I, 1999.
2. The Indian Phannaceuticals Industry is today self-reliant in several areas. The
low levels of profitability combined with comparatively small size of the companies was
largely responsible for the low investment in R & D, which has been largely concentrated
191
on process development for known drugs. The commg century will pose several
challenges to the industry, not the least of all will be the new IPR regime.
3. The Committee enunciated a vision for Indian pharma R&D as:.
''To provide intellectual capital to make available safe, cost-effective, contemporary,
quality therapeutics to the people of India to help reduce percentage of mortality and
morbidity and to emerge as a significant player in the global market place."
In consonance with this vision, a grand dream for production, export and investment in
phanna R&D was evolved. This report suggests the measures by which such a dream and
vision could be realised.
Source http://pib.nic.inlarchieve/lreleng/lyr2000/rjan2000/r24012000.html
(Press Information Bnreau, Government of India )
4. Priority areas for Indian pharma R&D have been identified. India's excellent
expertise in developing new and innovative processes for known molecules needs to be
exploited in a greater measure. Priority needs to be given for initiation of new drug
development for diseases of relevance to the Indian population, while at the same time
seizing opportunities to become a global player by introducing globally competitive
products based on new molecules, new delivery systems, etc.
5. To achieve such objectives, the existing human resonrces in conventional
methods of drug discovery need refurbishing alongside acquisition of newer tools of drug
discovery. Identification of such tools, estimation of the new human resource
requirement, the levels of required investment and the centres where such investment
could be made have been specified in the report.
6. Citing the unique opportunity for India to become a leading centre for clinical
trials, the Committee has called for basic changes in the legislation allowing import of
animals, contract research, and a legal status for institutional animal ethics committee.
Furthennore, establishment and operationalisation of a cGMP, GLP and GCP monitoring
authority has been recommended.
7. Recognising the crucial role played by the Indian systems of medicine in the
health care needs of our population, the Committee has recommended major and specific
initiatives to strengthen and modernise the existing infrastructure. Proper scientific
192
documentation of our traditional knowledge base in the internationally accepted format
and media has been suggested as a priority.
Source http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2000/rjan2000/r24012000.html
(Press Information Bureau, Government of India )
8. A higher level of innovation and IPR management coupled with strategic
manufacturing and aggressive marketing will largely determine Indian pharma industry's
future. Specific measures for strengthening the IPR system with action points for the
Government, judiciary and the legal system, industry, S&T and educational system have
been suggested. Some suggestions for enacting a TRIPs compatible IPR legislation,
which protects the interest of the consumers and allows a platform for the growth of
Indian pharma industry have been made.
9. In the backdrop of a strong trend towards globalisation of regulatory and
scientific requirement pertaining to safety, efficacy and quality issue, the Committee has
recommended a professionally managed and efficient regulatory mechanism under the
Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation. Several specific measures have been
suggested to facilitate creation of a new structure for CDSCO.
10. Recognising that the significant areas of healthcare of relevance and value to
the Indian populace will not be addressed by the companies in the developed world, the
Committee has recommended the establishment of Drug Development Promotion
Foundation, which will promote such R&D. This foundation will be truly autonomous
and independent of the government, with a well defined legal structure. The Committee
has also detailed the functions, management and financing of the Foundation.
II. On the funding of R&D, the Committee has suggested several fiscal and non
fiscal measures. Most importantly, an effective venture capital financing environment
needs to be created by removing the existing roadblocks, which have been specifically
identified. For attracting R & D towards high cast-low-return areas the Committee
recommends mandatory collection and contribution of l% of MRP of all
fonnulations sold within the country to a fund called 'Phannaceutical R & D Support
Fund' to be administered by the Drug Development Promotion Foundation. In a major
recommendation the Committee has suggested that a significant portion of the proceeds
realised under DPEA should be credited to this fund.
193
12. Finally, concrete action points for the government agencies and departments
have been specified with time frames. The Committee has urged the government to
quickly set-up an enabling mechanism under the Department of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals to initiate implementation of its recommendations in a time bound
manner.
Source: http:/ /pib .ni c. in! archieve/lrel eng/! yr2 000/rj an2000/r240 12 000 .html
Information Bureau, Government of India)
(Press
Icfain Journal of Management Research carried out out a detailed research on
R&D activities of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry and the authors state that considering
the substantial time taken in the development process of a drug (I 0-12 years) there is a
need to predict a future healthcare environment as also factoring in issues of
epidemiology and demographics in R&D decision-making. The authors have developed
two types of R&D models in the pharma industry- the traditional model focused on the
large scale output of blockbuster drugs to help the company dominate the world market
and the modem R&D model which is more focused on the company being innovative,
flexible and dynamic in its decision-making. The authors mention that though the aim of
pharma and biotech companies is creating a company culture that thrives on innovation
and employment development, it is hard to achieve in practice. They emphasize on the
need for making use of external partners such as Contract Research Organizations
( CROs) in the R&D process for both reducing the cost and time involved.
In another study published in Marketing Mastermind of ICFAI University
'Trends in Phannaceutical Marketing in India", the pharma market in India is
prescription driven branded generic market. In a way, the market is fragmented and
intensely competitive. The market is unique in its reliance on person-to-person
communication rather than the mass media. The authors state that before launching any
new product, product concept evaluation, market potential analysis, product use profiling
and positioning strategies are required. The article talks about the emerging trends, and
elaborates on the marketing alliances (co-marketing), growing OTC market, emerging
DTC channel and major thrust towards generic marketing. The authors conclude that
domestic companies with strong R&D, effective sales and distribution network, alliance
194
with foreign companies with world class manufacturing facilities will have a definite
competitive advantage and are most likely to outperform the industry.
Source : http://www.icfaipress.org/books/Pharm _Sect_ Tmds _Cases_ V.asp
ICFAI Press Publication )
4.17 REVITALIZING THE PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS
Innovative Marketing Approaches by Dr. R.B. Smarta
Dr R B Smarta explores new and innovative marketing responses to the changing
realities in order to inject new life into pharmaceutical organizations. Beginning with a
discussion on innovation and strategy, the book goes on to suggest how pharmaceutical ·
companies can acquire, develop and nurture their marketing assets. Dr. Smarta stresses
the need to be creative in communicating to one's customers. He outlines new and
unconventional sales promotion avenues while emphasizing the need to reach customers
through well-defined distribution channels. He also discusses the policies, practices and
procedures that can help to implement innovative marketing approaches in order to
achieve definite results. The book concludes with demonstrating how the success of . .
marketing operations can be measured through financial analysis.
4.17.1 PHARMA SECTOR MISSES ATTENTION OF UNION
BUDGET 2004-'05
Despite a host of important suggestions and demands submitted by various drug
industry associations to the Ministry of Finance, the Union Budget 2004-'05 has no
specific proposals to give a boost to this promising industry. Even as the drug industry in
India is to enter a new mode of business pattern with the emergence of product patent
regime during the same budgetary period, the finance minister hardly considered any of
these proposals made by the industry thus naturally, the responses to the Central Budget
this time from the disappointed industry circle was greatly melancholic. The reactions to
the Union Budget presented by P Chidambaram in the Parliament echoed that it was not
digested well by the phanm industry for the lack of any specific proposal for the sector
and for not making any mention of price control, encouragement due to lPR regime, tax
incentives in the areas of R&D and manufacturing. On the overall, the MNCs were more
195
vociferous in expressing their dissatisfaction from the Budget. The Indian corporales, on
the other hand, seemed to have a more balanced view on the Budget.
Yogin Majmudar, president, Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association (IDMA),
said, "The Budget is more or less an extension of last year. Nothing has been assured in
the areas of R&D or duty revision. None of the IDMA recommendations were
met. We had requested for a duty exemption on the import of anti-AIDS drugs, which
was not met."
Dr. Ajit Dangi, director general, OPPI, said that as per the recommendations of
the Chelliah committee, the government could have reduced the import duties of drugs
from 20 per cent to 15 per cent and I 0 per cent respectively. There is still an import duty
of 5 per cent and 15 per cent on the import of life saving drugs, which could have been
done away with," he said.
Source: www.pharmabiz.com
Dr. Brian W Tempest, CEO & managing director, Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. said, "
Though the pharmaceutical industry is widely believed to be India's next potent vehicle
for catapulting the country on a high growth trajectory, no fiscal incentives seem to have
been provided either for pharma R&D or for leveraging Intellectual Property. The
Finance Minister should address these issues in the 2005-2006 Budget. Emphasis has
been laid on education, rural health, employment, food, water-shed management and
defense. Rates have been kept unchanged in both Direct & Indirect Taxes. The most
significant revenue raising measure is the 2 per cent education cess on all taxes and the
widening of the Service Tax net, along with the increase in Service Tax rate from 8 per
cent to I 0 per cent. In a nut-shell, there is thought and honour in this Budget, but no
passion or courage
Satish Reddy, managing director and COO, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, strongly
reacted to the Union Budget 2004-'05 that there is practically nothing for
Phannaceuticals, except for a 10 years I 00 per cent tax exemption for companies doing
research in Biotechnology. "The Budget is likely to lead towards the growth of certain
sectors like Agriculture, and for more broad based focus on growth, one may have to wait
for the next Budget," he added.
196
l/amla, director (Finance), Pfizer India, said, "The Budget has been a
disappointment as far as Indian pharmaceutical industry is concerned. The Common
Minimum Programme (CMP) of the current government had promised an increase in
expenditure for the pharma industry, which was not indicated in the Budget. A
countervailing duty of 16 per cent has been imposed on life saving drugs, which means
the life saving drugs will become costlier by !6 per cent. The service tax is extended to
transport and logistics sector, which will increase operational expenditure of pharrna
companies."
Source : www.pharmabiz.com
However, T S Jaishankar, chairman, Confederation of Indian Pharmaceuticals
Industries (CIPI), welcomed the Budget saying that it takes into consideration the
interests of all the walks of public life, and is satisfactory for the pharmaceutical industry.
The Finance Minister has not tried to bring in much sensational changes that could not
only affect the pharmaceutical sector, but also other sectors. The decision to increase the
CLSS scheme limit to One crore and to increase its subsidy component to 15 per cent will
definitely help the cause of the pharmaceutical industry, now undergoing a transition
phase. Another noticeable development was the proposed health insurance scheme, which
will definitely boost the turnover of the Indian Pharma sector.
Habil Khorakhiwala, chairman, Wockhardt Ltd feels that the Budget was
balanced. "The 2 % cess that will yield Rs 5,000 crore a year for education is a gigantic
leap if implemented properly. At the same time, he has sent the right signals to the
industry and world at large by raising the foreign direct investment cap in key sectors like
telecom and airports. However, we are disappointed that there is nothing in this Budget to
promote R&D in phannaceutical sector, which the industry expected and deserved,
against the background of the new patent regime begitming on January I, 2005. The
Finance Minister has provided incentives to R&D in automobile but left out
pharmaceuticals. I hope he will make amends for this omission before long,"
A jay Piramal, chairman, Nicholas Piramal India Ltd was also of a similar opinion.
"The growth plan of 7-8 per cent is encouraging. I would have liked if there would have
been a clarification on weighted income tax deduction status for R&D spend of
phannaceutical companies beyond March 2005. Indian phannaceutical companies are at
!97
a crucial point of evolution, and the continuation of this incentive will assist Companies
to allocate higher funds for research," he said.
Source: www.pharmabiz.com
According to Venkat Jasti, president, Bulk Drug Manufacturers Association, and
vice chairman, Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil), there is no much
emphasis on pharma sector, though only health insurance is given some importance.
"Though Automobile industry has been notified as an industry entitled to 150 per cent
deduction of expenditure on in-house R&D facilities, and it is presumed that it may
continue for pharma sector for another 9 months or so," he said.
1A Modi, chairman, Cadi/a Pharmaceuticals, said, "The exemplary work done
by the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has totally missed the attention of the Finance
Minister while presenting the Budget for the year 2004-2005. It seems that, the
concessions to the Farming Sector has over shadowed the Pharmaceutical Sector. "He
added that the Pharmaceutical Industry today is growing at a commendable speed and
particularly it is making deep inroads into the developed countries, where the earnings are
substantial. From 2005 when the WTO comes into effect, the existence of the 'Industry
largely depends on research. Pharmaceutical research shall have to be strengthened more
and more to capture the developed markets through newly expiring patents and new
molecules discovery. To exploit the patent expiry market, the Pharmaceutical research
should have sufficient fund, to address the issue through non-infringing processes where
the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has done commendable achievement and a large
number of molecules have already been registered in the developing countries.
SV Veeramani, clwimum of the SSI Subcommittee of the !Julian Drug
Manufacturers Association (JDMA) ami CMD, Fourtts Lab, said the Budget could be
tem1ed as a poor man's Budget and it has not much to enthuse the pharmaceutical sector.
However, the Budget could be felt as satisfactory since it has not brought in any negative
provisions against the sector.
He added that the welcome steps include increasing the CLCSS scheme limit for
SSls from the existing 40 lakhs to Rs l crorc and to hike the subsidy part from 12 per
198
cent to 15 per cent. Similarly, the liberal incentives announced for the growth of biotech
sector and for the R&D units will definitely help the Indian industry to grow marginally.
4.18 MONOGRAPHS ON ACCOUNTING FOR RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The advent of WTO related issues have once again surfaced on a strong platform,
after l st January, 2005, when the new patent, IPR regime has come into full effect. The
main theme of" Competency Building under Global Competition under WTO scenario",
opens the key issues relating to Accounting of Research and Development Costs. The
Institute of Cost and Works Accountants Of India ( ICWAI ), had come out with a major
treatise on " Management and Accounting for Research and Development - The Indian
Praxis" by Prof. S.K. Chakraborty in collaboration with Mr. Bipul K.Bhaumik, in the year
1984. The macro and micro level issues on Research and Development Costs were
deliberated in detail in the publication. The current brief update on Accounting for
Research and Development Costs, takes off from the earlier views and opens the area,
that has to evolve in Accounting for Research and Development Costs. "Product and
Project Costing and Monitoring of R & D Costs" gives thorough analysis of R&D Costs
and The Committee felt that it will be most appropriate to include it as part of this
monograph. The Accounting Standard -8 -Accounting for Research and Development is
also included as a reference, as the accounting treatment is a key issue on the treatment of
Research and Development Costs.
Source: www.phannabiz.com
Source: http://www.aicmas.com/rd.doc
This brief monograph evolves standard practices in future, that can be helpful to
the management accounting fraternity and various users.
l. In most of the cases explored R&D costs do find their way into cunent produc
tion costs and into product pricing.
2. This is achieved by adding R&D costs usually to administrative and at times to
manufacturing overheads.
3. We came across at least one instance where R&D costs did not percolate down
to product costing, but were directly debited to the P&L NC.
199
4. Project-costing, especially for manpower costs and overheads, is being done in
rather sophisticated ways in certain very large and diversified companies having an R&D
set-up. The responsibility centre concept for overhead allocation, and standard manpower
unit conversions are employed in a few cases only.
5. The range of practices regarding project cost monitoring is also very wide.
Amongst them, the various fonnats illustrated above highlight the crucial aspects of R&D
monitoring in some of the organisations surveyed by us. Many R&D Heads, however
believe in aggregate R&D budgeting, but not in project wise budgeting.
6. As a sequel to the last stance mentioned above, specific tracing of R&D costs
to individual projects is rare to find (see point 2 above also). Obviously, project
budgeting and project-costing for R&D should be implemented by all concerned.
7. Little evidence could be collected on the manner of apportioning common
overhead costs of the enterprise to the R&D centre.
8. Filling up of time spent record cards by researchers was in clear evidence
(supported by printed formats) in only two firms. Though manhour time cost is the
largest single category of R&D costs, research personnel, including· their Heads, usually
resent the time-logging formality. The 1979 NAA study also concludes that while time
reporting is an important area, the amount of control in it must be weighed against a
possible loss in research productivity.
Source: http://www.aicmas.com/rd.doc
9. Often the rules and regulations of the Department of Company Affairs, the
Indirect Tax Authorities, and price regulating Ministries provide conflicting motivations
to enterprises in the treatment of R&D costs for product costing and pricing.
10. The Cost Accounting Record Rules should draw a clear distinction between
Research and Development-so far as deferred revenue expenditure treatment is pennitted.
Besides, the costing fonnats should provide R&D costs with a separate identity, or
explain under which existing head it is to be incorporated.
II. Wherever firms draw a distinction between Research and Development,
explicit policies should be framed regarding who should bear these two types of costs-the
existing consumer, or the future consumer or the shareholder?
200
(Extract from "Management and Accounting for Research and Development- The Indian
Praxis" by Prof. S.K.Chakraborty in collaboration with Mr. Bipul K.Bhaumik, and
JCWAI Publication.)
4.19 Studies on Intellectual Property Rights
It needs a lot of idea and knowledge for creating something new. For example,
new drugs and new technology products are produced after a lot of research work, time
and above all, huge costs. Films, music recordings, computer software etc. sales depend
on their innovativeness. So, creators should be given the right to prevent others from
copying their inventions, designs or other creations as well as negotiating with others the
use of their products. With this frame, the IPR was bought into WTO. As per the WTO's
agreement negotiated in 1986-94 Uruguay Round, Intellectual Property Rights was
introduced into the multilateral trading system from!'' Jan.2005.
"Intellectual Property Rights are defined as the rights given to people over the
creation of their minds. An exclusive right is given to the creator over the use of his/her
creations for a certain period of time (Now called Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights".
Source: www.wto.org
Any country coming under WTO is obliged to follow TRIPS, although it has
independence to make its own patent law matching with the specific needs of the country.
There is nothing like an international patent law. There is a transition period given to
each country to adopt the TRIPS Agreement covered under three categories as per the
WTO.
Developed countries were given a transition period of one year following the
entry into force of the WTO agreement, that is, until!" January 1996.
Developing countries were allowed a five-year period up to I" January 2000 to
apply the provisions of the agreement (excluding Articles 3,4, and 5 of WTO
Agreement). Transition economies also come under this.
Least developed countries were given a transitional period of eleven years i.e.
until I'' January 2006 with the possibility of an extension. For phannaccutical
201
patents, this has been extended to l'' January 2016, under a decision taken at the
Fourth ministerial Conference in November 2001.
4.19.1 Under the agreement during Transition period:
All members availing longer transitional period have to comply obligations on
national treatment (i.e. equal treatment for foreign and domestic individual and
companies) and most-favored nation treatment (i.e. equal treatment for nationals of all
trading partners in the WTO) fium 1 '' January 1996. A developing country is given
around ten years i.e. up to 1 '' January 2005 to provide patent protection in a particular
area of technology. A mail box provision is created for filing patent applications for
pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products from beginning of the transitional
product, even though decision to grant patents may be taken at the end of the transition
period. If marketing rights are given to these products by government, then it should be
only for five years or until a decision to grant a product patent is taken, whichever is
shorter.
Any country coming under WTO is obliged to follow TRIPS, although it has
independence to make its own patent law matching with the specific needs of the country.
There is nothing like an international patent law. There is a transition period given to
each country to adopt the TRIPS Agreement covered under three categories as per the
WTO
Developed countries were given a transition period of one year following the
entry into force of the WTO agreement, that is, until!'' January 1996.
Developing countries were allowed a five-year period up to l '' January 2000 to
· apply the provisions of the agreement (excluding Articles 3,4, and 5 of WTO
Agreement). Transition economies also come under this.
Least developed countries were given a transitional period of eleven years i.e.
until !'' January 2006 with the possibility of an extension. For pharmaceutical
patents, this has been extended to I" January 20 I 6, under a decision taken at the
Fourth ministerial Conference in November 200 I.
202
4.19.2 Obligations under the agreement during Transition period
All members availing longer transitional period have to comply obligations on
national treatment (i.e. equal treatment for foreign and domestic individual and
companies) and most-favored nation treatment (i.e. equal treatment for nationals of all
trading partners in the WTO) from I'' January 1996. A developing country is given
around ten years i.e. up to I'' January 2005 to provide patent protection in a particular
area of technology.
A mail box provision is created for filing patent applications for pharmaceutical
and agricultural chemical products from beginning of the transitional product, even
though decision to grant patents may be taken at the end of the transition period. If
marketing rights are given to these products by government, then it should be only for
five years or until a decision to grant a product patent is taken, whichever is shorter.
Countries which are availing the transition period should ensure that any change
in their laws, regulations and practice made during the transition period do not result in a
lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the agreement.
4.19.3 Subject Matter and Main Fields of Application of Intellectual
Property Rights
Types ofiPR 1Subject Matter [Main Fields j L~ ------ - -- - - ---r,:;---~-~- --------- -------- ------ ---·-J 1 • !Chemicals, drugs, plastics, engines, r 'New non-obvwus, I
Patents I ' iturbines, electronics, industrial control:1 industrially applicable 1
land scientific equipment ·
:si~;orsymbols t~ id~~tify I -- - -~ - --- - --- - --Trademarks 'All industries
:goods and services J
i -- 'i'ri~tini entertainment (~u~li~: -video, I CopYJight Original works of authorship I ;
I :motion pictures), software, broadcasting' , I
---· ------ --- r· - - --~---- ---- --
,Integrated circuits ,Original layout designs Micro-electronics industry
' Breeders' rights
I
'New, stable, homogeneous, I ~ 'Agriculture and food industry 'distinguishable varieties I
---~-------
203
Trade secrets I secret busin;ss information !All industries I - ~-- ---- - --- ------- __ J
Industri~ldesign;-;o-;:;1~ment~l desig~s-- :Clothing, automobiles, electronics, etc. I < I l
Ge~g~~phical-~iae~g;~phical -~rigi;---~f:Wines, spirits, cheese and oth~;-foodJ
indications 1goods and services :products __j Utility models 'Functional models/designs !Mechanical industry 1
••• '~---'" ~Mw ,,,,__l __ , __ ,~w•-""-''"-''~~-~--~---~m~~-'"' __ j Source : The TRIPS Agreement: A Guide for the South, South Center, Geneva, 1997
4.19.4 Suggestions for modification in the present Patents Act, 1970
Sr. No Present Act Modification Transition status
I Product No product patents Product patent to Product patent
Patent are allowed for be allowed in all applications go to a
food, fields of mailbox that will be
pharmaceutical and technology opened latest by 2005
agro-chemical, only without any
process patents exception
2 Duration 14 years for all Uniform duration Have to wait till
except for food, of 20 years amendment of patent
pharmaceutical and without any laws. EMRS for
agrochemical where exception mailbox patents can be
it is of seven years granted for 5 years.
3 Life forms Patenting of Patenting of life The biodiversity . .
fonns must be Conversation Bill, m1croorgamsms,
non-biological and pennitted which will protect
microbiological Indian germplasm, IS
processes are not still under
pennitted consideration mnong
the ministries.
4 Plant No protection of Plant varieties Plant Varieties Bill IS
varieties plant varieties must be protected also under
204
either to patents consideration among
or sui generis the ministries
system by 1999
5 Granting Govt. has power to Compulsory No action is taken on
of licenses grant compulsory licenses to be granting of licenses on
licenses g1ven only on merit basis
merits of each
case. Patent
holder will be
given an
opportunity to be
heard
Source: Bhushan K.Bonde, Vilas "Patents m Pharmacy The Indian Scenario", The
Eastern Pharmacist, September 1999.
Patents are important as they give legal protection for newly developed products and
processes. Many new basic inventions, protected through patents, have given rise to
m[\jor breakthroughs in various sectors such as Viagra for Pfizer Ltd., techno-industrial
development- xerography and the Xerox Corporation, etc.
4.20 Studies conducted by Contract Research and Manufacturing
Industry
India with its intrinsic competitive advantages remams as one of the most
preferred outsourcing destinations and is now playing a vital role in manufacturing as
well as drug development value chain of various im10vator companies. It has become a
strategic imperative for global phanna companies to make India an integral part of their
manufacturing value chain to maintain lean cost structures and combat intense
competition in the global generics industry. Besides, phanna multinationals are also
increasingly using India as a base for exports not only to the immediate neighbouring
markets, but also to other markets, around the world such as Japan, South Africa, Latin
America and Europe.
205
Due to government policy initiatives for strengthening R&D in pharma by way of
fiscal incentives and other steps to strengthen regulatory mechanism, new R&D setups
with excellent infrastructure are coming up in various regions of the country. Compared
to the average R&D spend of two percent turnover in the sector, more and more pharma
companies are taking a lead in increasing their R&D spending to over seven percent of
their turnover which is a noteworthy achievement. Results of the R&D, manufacturing of
drugs with high quality cost effectiveness and availability world over and higher market
penetration will enable India to become the first in production volume from the present
fourth place in the world.
In due course of time we will develop more 'molecules to drugs' indige-nously.
We have the human power, but what we need to do is to organise ourselves to attain
global standards. This is imperative if we have to develop products that are universally
accepted. Since these involve different technologies like preclinicals, phase I and phase II
clinical trials, pharmacology, bioinformatics etc, we need to develop co-operative skills.
India will soon be able to achieve wider availability and accessibility of therapeutic drugs
arid medical services of acceptable quality at affordable rates to all citizens. The industry
would have indigenous cost-effective drug developments in the form of vaccines,
medicines and diagnostics, which will help in the world market through exports since our
products will have an edge due to the cost. But industry players are clear that over a
period of time they will not be able to rely on cost arbitrage for growth.
"To some extent, the US and European companies understand the cost structure of
the service providers - quality and project management are critical," points out Bharat
Shah, president of Calyx International, a manufacturer of APis and intennediates that
entered the CRAMS space in 200 I.
India is already an attractive destination and to sustain this, building capacity is
going to be a key factor. It is not just about cost arbitrage, because beyond cost arbitrage,
it would be the ability to offer large intellectual capital in numbers which no other
country can do. We have to be competitive in terms of regulations and the speed at which
we tum things around.
Experts foresee expansiOn m new areas, including contract manufacturing of
injcctablcs, which is currently a minor segment because of the need for sterile facilities
206
and specialized technical knowledge. They also suggest that biology based services will
also gain momentum over a period of time.
According to industry experts, the next three years will be good for the industry as
there will be several strategic shifts like many more Indian majors moving up the value
chain and entering into partnerships involve early-stage licensing and risk sharing. The
clinical research market is also likely to undergo a composition change; bioavailability
and bioequivalence studies have occupied a reasonable share of the clinical research
market. However, clinical trials of NCEs/NBEs (Phase II-IV) and data management
would pick up in the years to come.
In conclusion, it is imperative to state that in the future as the CRAMS business
and markets get more mature, the cost advantage will no longer be the prime attracting
factor for the innovators, but rather the importance would shift to factors such as quality,
timeliness and value-added services that are offered.
4.20.1 DIVI'S LABORATORIES LTD.
Vintage: Divi's Laboratories Ltd. was established in the year 1990; with Research &
Development as its prime fundamental.
Focus: Divis Laboratories has focussed on developing new processes for the production
of Active Pharma Ingredients (APis) & Intermediates.
Product uses: It is in the manufacturing of drugs that are used as painkillers and in the
treatment of cold, cough, fever and inflammation in the body.
Infrastructure
Divi's operates from its Headquarters and Registered Office at Hyderabad. The company
has three manufacturing facilities:
• The 1st Facility at village Lingojigudem, Choutuppal Mandai, Nalgonda district, about
60 KM fi·om Hyderabad. Area: 300 acres
• The 2nd Facility has been converted as an Export Oriented Unit at village Chippada,
Bheemunipatnam Mandai, Visakhapatnam Dis!. about 30 KM from the Port City of
Visakhapatnam on the east coast. Area: 314 acres
207
• The 3rd facility is an SEZ Unit at village Chippada, Bheemunipatnam Manda!,
Visakhapatnam Dist., which was commissioned and commenced commercial operations
during 2007.
The company has 4 Research Centers having a total of 117 research stations.
Subsidiaries
Divi's Laboratories (USA) Inc. New Jersey, USA.
Divi's Laboratories Europe AG Basel, Switzerland.
Both were inc01porated in early 2006 for the purpose of marketing the products and
widening their customer base in these regions. Divi's Laboratories Limited, India having
a I 00% holding.
Regulatory compliance: Complete cGMP guidelines are complied to in both the plants I
and 2. Both the plants are also USFDA and ISO compliant. As a company Divis
understand that sustained development is not possible without respecting to IPR. Divis
takes great care to ensure that its product or processes do not infringe valid patents.
Manpower
Unit I: 1300, Unit2: 600
Research Center: 200 scientists
Clients: Divi's has emerged as the 'Preferred Supplier' for around 20 of the top 25 global
Pharma innovators.
Three vears financials at a !!lance (Rs in Lakhs)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Sales (Net) 34737.83 38111.07 72442.45
Sales growth(%) 14.71 9.71 90.08
Other Income 1714.65 1062.48 1360.83
Total Income 36452.48 39173.55 73803.28
Total Income growth (%) 14.89 7.46 88.40
EBIDTA 12167.99 12731.03 25960.62
Interest 429.89 558.32 1057.39
Depreciation 1506.68 1481.59 2232.86
Profit Before Tax (PBT) l 0231.42 l069l.l2 22670.37
PBT Growth (%) 0.34 4.49 ---·-
112.05
208
Provision for Taxation 3628.30 3643.98 3495.87
Profit after Tax (PAT) 6603.12 7047.14 19174.50
PAT Growth(%) -9.35 6.72 172.09
Equity Share Capital 1281.87 1281.87 1291.14
Reserves & Surplus 27084.12 32799.78 52913.37
Net worth 28365.99 34081.65 54204.51
Net Worth growth(%) 23.76 20.15 59.04
Gross Fixed Assets 25380.49 30185.58 49066.56
Net Fixed Assets 18154.39 21477.38 38119.19
Total Fixed Assets 37478.26 51916.04 72553.22
KEY INDICATORS
Earnings per share (EPS) 51.51 54.98 149.54
Debt equity ratio 0.23 0.44 0.28
Operating Margin (%) 35.02 33.41 35.84
Net Profit Margin (%) 19.01 18.49 25.98
Return on Networth (%) 23.28 20.68 35.37
Turnover
During the year, Divi's achieved a turnover ofRs.72442 lakhs as against Rs. 38llllakhs
during the previous year reflecting a growth of 90%.
Your company's product portfolio currently comprises about Ill products covering:
i) Generic products and their intermediates.
ii) New Chemistries comprising:
a. Custom Synthesis of AP!s and Intennediates for multinational
innovators worldwide.
b. Peptide building blocks
c. Nutraceutical products
During the year, Divi's has added 13 products to its product portfolio of which 2
are generic APls and intenncdiatcs and 11 are custom synthesis AP!s and intennediates.
Exports constituted 93% of total turnover as against 89% in the previous year and
exports to advanced markets comprising Europe and America accounted for 75% of
business.
209
Other Income
Other Income mainly comprised Contract Research fee and sale/transfer of some
of the export benefits like DEPB Credits and drawbacks available to the company. The
newly commissioned SEZ Unit has also contributed to business during the year. Other
Income for the year amounted to Rs.l361 lakhs as against Rs. 1 062 lakhs for the previous
year. Income on Export benefits for the year came to at Rs.747 lakhs as against Rs. 446
lakhs during the last year. Income on contract research accounted for Rs.269 lakhs during
the year as against Rs.348 lakhs during the last year.
Earnings before interest, depreciation, taxation and amortisation (EBIDTA)
EBIDTA for the year grew by about I 04% to Rs. 25961 lakhs as against Rs. 12731 lakhs
during the previous year. This impressive growth in profitability during the year is due to
significant increase business aided by custom synthesis which has grown close to 50% of
total business and a very good growth in the generic products business.
Operating Margin
The Operating margin is 35.84% as against 33.07% during the previous year. This
is mainly on account of the impressive 104% growth of EBIDTA in comparison to the
previous year.
Profit after Tax (PAl)
Profit after Tax (PAT) grew by about 172% to Rs.19174lakhs as against Rs. 7047
lakhs during the previous year reflecting a magnanimous growth of 172.09%.This is
attributed to the phenomenal increase in the company's turnover and the tax exemptions
that the company gets on its EOU (Export Oriented Unit) and SEZ. The marginal
decrease in the provision for taxation by 4% has also contributed to this increase in PAT.
Net Profit Margin
The net profit margin of the company which was 18.49% during the previous year
increased to 25.98%. This is attiibuted to the growth in sales and thus brought about
increase in the Profit after Tax.
Earnings per Share (EPS)
Eamings per Share for the year work out to Rs.l49.54 per share as against Rs.
54.98 last year.
210
Debt Equity Ratio
Debt-equity ratio as of 31st March, 2007 was at 0.28, based on total debt, as
against 0.44 during the previous year. This is mainly due to a 37.12% increase in the
shareholders' funds (as the company introduced ESOPs) but not a commensurate increase
in the loan funds which recorded an increase of only 2.5%, and commencement of the
repayment of the loans (to the extent ofRs. 286lakhs) taken during the previous year.
Return on Net Worth
Return on Net Worth has increased to 35.37% as compared to 20.68% during the
previous year, thus making the company more profitable for the shareholders.
This year the company also paid an interim dividend in addition to the I 00% final
dividend that it had distributed during the previous year as well, thereby showing that the
company values the shareholders' interests and ensures that they are satisfied.
4.20.2 MATRIX LABORATORIES
Focus: Matrix Laboratories offers Contract Research & Development services during
early stages of Development and Contract Manufacturing for projects that have advanced
further into development and are being considered for commercial manufacturing.
Product uses: The company is in the manufacturing of drugs that are used as painkillers
and in the treatment of diabetes, aids, cardiovascular diseases, asthma and bacterial and
viral diseases.
Infrastructure: Matrix Laboratories has manufacturing facilities at four locations in and
around Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, India, manufacturing a wide range of Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients. The company's Solid Oral Dosage Forms facility is located
nearNashik, about 150 km from Mumbai.
Joint Ventures
Matrix Laboratories has joint ventures with Astrix Laboratories Ltd. and Fine Chemicals
Corporation (Proprietary) Ltd., holding 50% of interest in both the entities.
Subsidiaries
The company has 26 subsidiary companies and a geographical footprint in places like
USA, Europe, Singapore and South Africa.
211
Regulatory compliance: All of the company's manufacturing facilities in India have
been designed to meet the requirements of Drug Regulatory Agencies. All the facilities
are US-FDA approved. The facilities also have ISO 9000, ISO 14000 Certifications. The
Finished Dosage Form facility as Nashik is WHO GMP compliant.
Manpower
Total Employees: 2000
R & D scientists: 200+
Clients: Matrix's clients include 15 of the top 20 pharmaceutical majors in the world
Three years financials at a glance (Rs. in Lakhs)
2004 -OS 2005-06 2006-07
Sales (Net) 67168.80 66713.60 74950.60
Sales growth (%) 20.62 (0.60) 12.34
Other Income 1097.00 13128.40 1637.20
Total Income 65229.00 82570.10 79998.30
Total Income growth(%) 20.85 26.58 (3.11)
EBIDTA 18770.40 24221.10 14798.70
Interest 627.70 815.00 1540.10
Depreciation 2043.30 2234.20 2507.10
Profit Before Tax (PBT) 16099.40 21171.90 10751.50
PBT Growth(%) 8.82 31.50 (49.21)
Provision for Taxation 3072.70 2933.90 790.20
Profit after Tax (PAT) 13026.70 18238.00 996!.30
PAT Growth(%) 4.54 40.00 (45.38)
Equity Share Capital 3059.50 3604.20 3966.10
Reserves & Surplus 59340.90 93628.20 101935.50
Net worth 62400.40 97232.40 105901.60
Net Worth growth(%) 250.00 55.82 8.91
Gross Fixed Assets 43227.40 81679.10 106230.50
Net Fixed Assets 33235.50 62913.70 81281.70
Total Fixed Assets 37110.70 75284.70 84896.70
212
KEY INDICATORS
Earnings per share (EPS) Rs. 8.90 Rs. 13.23 Rs. 4.96
Debt equity ratio O.Q7 0.18 0.23
Operating Margin (%) 27.94 36.31 19.75
Net Profit Margin(%) 19.40 27.33 13.30
Return on Networth (%) 20.88 18.75 9.41
Turnover
Matrix Laboratories has achieved net revenues ofRs. 74950.60 Lakhs for the year
ended 31st March, 2007 compared toRs. 66713.60 Lakhs in the previous year, reflecting
a growth of 12%. Even though the market witnessed sharp price cuts for most of the first
line products, volumes continued to grow.
Export sales contributed 64% of the total sales and recorded a growth of28% over
the previous year whereas domestic sales that contribute 36% of the total sales recorded a
I 0% decrease over the previous year. During the year 2006, My! an Laboratories Inc., a
leading pharmaceutical company in USA, acquired a controlling interest in Matrix
Laboratories. This has enabled the company to derive advantages in terms of economies
of scale by supplying a number of APis to Mylan Laboratories, in addition to its present
business with third party customers.
Other Income
Other Income mainly comprised Interest on bank and other accounts and
miscellaneous income. Other Income for the year amounted to Rs.l637.20 lakhs as
against Rs. 13128.40 lakhs for the previous year. Interest on Bank and other accounts for
the year came to at Rs.363.30 lakhs as against Rs. 194.60 lakhs during the last year.
Miscellaneous Income accounted for Rs.ll59 lakhs during the year as against Rs.838
lakhs during the last year.
Earnings before interest, depreciation, taxation and amortisation (EBIDT A)
EBIDTA for the year declined by about 39% toRs. 14798.70 bkhs as against Rs.
2422!.10 lakhs during the previous year. the lower EBITDA is primarily due to lower
than expected earnings from Docphanna NV, a subsidiary of the company and higher
R&D spend. During FY07, Docphanna's results were lower than expected, due to price
213
erosion for key products in pharmaceutical business, initial costs incurred for the entry
into new markets as well as lower margins in Hospital business. The R&D spend was at
Rs.l 008 Lakhs, showing an increase of 156% over the previous year. This increase is due
to development of more number of APis as well as ramping up of the Finished Dosage
Development and filings.
Operating Margin
The Operating margin is 19.75% as against 36.31% during the previous year. This
is mainly on account of the 39% decline of EBIDTA in comparison to the previous year.
and an disproportionate increase of the company's turnover (12% ).
Profit after Tax (PAT)
The profit after tax (PAT) for the year declined by 45% to Rs. 9961.30 Lakhs
from Rs. 18238 Lakhs in the previous year. Previous year profit after tax includes
exceptional income to the extent of Rs 6859 Lakhs. Without exceptional income the
profit after tax for the previous year is at Rs 11379 Lakhs. The decline in the profit after
tax is primarily due to increased R & D spends and higher interest cost (which recorded
an increase of 161% over the previous year).
Net Profit Margin
The net profit margin of the company which was 27.33% during the previous year
decreased to 13.30%. This is attributed to the decline in the Profit after Tax and the
disproportionate increase in Turnover. With controlled R&D spends and lower interest
burden the company will be able to achieve higher profit margins. Since it has been only
a year since the Joint Venture between Matrix and Mylan, such a situation is witnessed.
In the coming years Matrix will start reaping the benefits of the economies of scale
brought about by this joint venture.
Earnings per Share (EPS)
Earnings per Share for the year work out to Rs.4.96 per share as against Rs. 13.23
last year.
Debt Equity Ratio
Debt-equity ratio as of 31st March, 2007 was at 0.23, as against 0.18 during the
previous year. This is mainly due to a 9% increase in the shareholders' funds but not a
commensurate increase in the loan funds which recorded an increase of 46% as the
214
company took a working capital loan of Rs. 22308.40 lakhs to meet its R&D spends and
increased costs.
Return on Net Worth
Retum on Net Worth has decreased to 9.41% as compared to 18.75% during the
previous year, thus making the company less profitable for the shareholders. Once the
profits of the company start improving, this situation can be taken care.
However, having regard to the significant capital expenditure embarked upon by the
Company to augment production capacity of its various plants to fulfill its global role, the
Directors, after due deliberation, decided not to recommend a dividend for the financial
year 2006-07. The Board was convinced that this approach is consistent with the
Company's commitment, amply demonstrated in the past, to growth and to enhance
shareholder value continuously.
4.20.3 JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.
Vintage: Jubilant Organosys Limited was incorporated m 1978 as Yam Organic
Chemicals Ltd.
Focus: Jubilant Organosys is an integrated pharmaceutical industry player having
presence across the pharmaceuticals value chain. Their range of offerings include drug
discovery and development services, custom research and manufacturing services,
advance intermediates, fine chemicals, active pharmaceutical ingredients, dosage forms
and regulatory affairs services.
Product uses: Jubilant Organosys Ltd is a leading manufacturer of acetyl, animal
nutrition and agricultural products like fertilizers and agrochemicals. These products have
wide applications in industries such as pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, textiles and
foods.
Infrastructure
Jubilant has seven manufacturing locations in India situated at Gajraula (in Uttar
Pradesh), Roorkee (Uttarakhand), Udaipur (Rajasthan), Nanjangud (in Kamataka), Nira
(in Maharashtra) and Samlaya (in Gujarat) and a manufacturing facility for dosage fonns
in Maryland, USA and state of Washington, USA.
215
Subsidiaries
In India:-
Jubilant Biosys Ltd. for bio/chemo informatics databases & drug discovery
serv1ces
Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. for medicinal chemistry services
Clinsys Clinical Research Ltd. for clinical research
International :-
Belgium: PSI N.V. and PSI Supply N.V., in which Jubilant Organosys holds 80%
equity, are the pharmaceuticals companies providing regulatory affairs services
and supply of dosage forms to European generic companies.
USA:Jubilant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Jubilant in USA, is a generic
phannaceutical company.
Clinsys Clinical Research Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, is a clinical research
organization (CRO) operating out of the USA.
Jubilant also has marketing subsidiaries in USA and China.
Regulatory compliance: The companies facilities in India are cGMP and ISO certified
and the facilities in USA are USFDA approved.
Manpower: 2400
Clients: With respect to the CRAMS business, Jubilant has entered into a "multi-million"
dollar 5-year contract with Syngenta to supply pyridines.
Three vears financials at a !!lance (Rs in Lakhs)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Sales (Net) 111450 138600 160970
Sales growth (%) 35.80 24.36 16.14
Other Income 1386 1774 3100
Total Income 115325 141550 166040
Total Income growth(%) 14.89 22.74 17.30
EBIDTA 20640 23800 36620
Interest 2130 1470 1510
Depreciation 3480 4420 5150
Profit Before Tax (PBT) 15030 17910 29960
216
PBT Growth(%) 15.42 19.16 67.28
Provision for Taxation 3700 4030 6810
Profit after Tax (PAT) 11330 13880 23150
PAT Growth(%) 10.20 22.50 66.79
Equity Share Capital 1295 1425 1438
Reserves & Surplus 48305 81020 94730
Net worth 49600 82455 96168
Net Worth growth(%) 8.75 6.62 16.64
Gross Fixed Assets 83595 105160 124270
Net Fixed Assets 52760 69860 83940
Total Fixed Assets 62060 81550 101630
KEY INDICATORS
Earnings per share (EPS) Rs. 9.39 Rs. 10.00 Rs. 16.13
Debt equity ratio 0.76 0.77 1.68
Operating Margin(%) 18.52 17.18 22.75
Net Profit Margin (%) 10.17 10.00 14.38
Return on Networth (%) 22.84 16.83 24.07
Turnover
Net Sales of the Company recorded growth of 16.1% to Rs.l60970 lakhs as
compared to Rs.13860 lakhs in the previous year. Export revenues increased 32.9% to
Rs.63200 lakhs from Rs.47600 billion. This increase in exports was mainly due to high
growth in Phannaceuticals and Life Science Products business in regulated markets of
USA, Europe and China. The Industrial Products business witnessed 8.9% growth in
sales to Rs.6900 lakhs. The Performance Polymers business also recorded growth of
4.8% to Rs.l9800 lakhs as compared to Rs.l8900 lakhs in FY 2005-06
Other Income
Other Income mainly comprised Income from non trade investments,
insurance/other claims and miscellaneous receipts. Other Income for the year amounted
to Rs.31 00 lakhs as against Rs. 1744 lakhs for the previous year. Income from non trade
investments (dividend) amounted to Rs. 2660 lakhs as against 2340 lakhs whereas
217
incurance claims declined to Rs. 36510 lakhs as against Rs. 39330 lakhs in the previous
year. Miscellaneous Receipts from Sale of unserviceable spares, used drums, residual
catalyst, etc showed a great jump from Rs. 125170 lakhs during the previous year to Rs.
270620 lakhs during FY07.
Earnings before interest, depreciation, taxation and amortisation (EBIDTA)
EBITDA at Rs.36620 lakhs recorded a growth of 53.9% as compared to Rs.23800
lakhs in the previous year, given better revenue performance and stability in the input
pricing environment across all business segments.
Operating Margin
The Operating margin is 22.75% as against 17.18% during the previous year. This
is mainly on account of the impressive 53.9% growth of EBIDTA in comparison to the
previous year.
Profit after Tax (PAT)
Profit after tax (PAT) showed a significant increase of66.8% toRs. 23150 lakhs
(14.4% of net sales) from Rs.13880 blakhs '(10% of net sales). This is attributed to the
increase in the company's sales and controlled expenditure by the company. Stability in
the input pricing environment across all business segments has also contributed to this
achievement.
Net Profit Margin
The net profit margin of the company which was I 0% during the previous year
increased to 14.38%. This is attributed to the growth in sales and the increase in Profit
after Tax brought about by controlled expenditure and stability in the input costs for all
business segments.
Earnings per Share (EPS)
Eamings per Share for the year work out to Rs.l6.13 per share as against Rs. I 0
last year.
Debt Equity Ratio
Debt-equity ratio as of 31st March, 2007 was at 1.68, as against 0.77 during the
previous year. The shareholders' funds increased by 16.64% as the paid up equity share
capital recorded an increase of 0. 7% as 10,02,339 equity shares were allotted on
218
conversion of FCCBs into equity shares and exercise of stock options by
employees/directors during the year 2006-07 and reserves & surplus increased by 17%.
However, loan funds increased in a much greater proportion ie 156%, as the company
took loans for investing in capacity expansion activities, thereby giving a high boost to
this ratio in comparison to the previous year.
Return ou Net Worth
Return on Net Worth has increased to 24.07% as compared to 16.83% during the
previous year, thus making the company more profitable for the shareholders. This year
the Directors recommended a dividend of 125% on fully paid up equity shares of Re. I
each, for the year ended 31st March 2007, thereby showing that the company values the
shareholders' interests and ensures that they are satisfied that they funds are being used
for productive purposes and they too reaping the benefits of the profits that the company
is making.
4.20.4 VIMTA LABORATORIES LTD.
Vintage: Vimta Laboratories Ltd. was established in the year 1984.
Focus: VIMTA Labs provides contract research and testing services in the areas of
clinical research, clinical reference lab services, environmental assessment and analytical
testing ·of a variety of products.
Infrastructure
The company has 130 roomed, centrally air conditioned laboratory equipped with
analytical instruments and data management systems. Round the clock operational
bioanalyticallab, equipped with 5 HPL Ss, 6 LCMSMSs and one GCMSMS.
Regulatory compliance
GMP: Drugs & Pharmaceutical testing including stability Studies-implementation
complete by June, 2007,at the Life Sciences facility, Hyderabad.
ISO 17025 -2005: Implemented in Analytical laboratories.
ISO 15189-2003: Implemented in Clinical Reference Laboratory.
Manpower
Scientists and Engineers: 3 66
PhDs: 15
Doctors (MDs: 12, MBBS: 14): 18
219
Supporting staff: 271
Total: 670
Clients: Clients include 6 Fortune 500 companies and 3 of the world's top ten generic
drug development companies.
Th ee vears financials at a !!lance r (Rs in Lakhs)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Revenue (Net) 5249.36 5469.39 5963.94
Revenue growth (%) 50.49 4.19 9.04
Other Income 8.49 36.31 427.30
Total Income 5257.85 5505.71 6391.24
Total income growth(%) 50.61 4.5 16.08
EBIDTA 2723.48 2577.78 2600.08
Finance Charges 47.11 42.50 274.78
Depreciation 375.97 503.40 939.95
Profit Before Tax (PBT) 2243.45 2031.88 1343.36
PBT Growth (%) 77.21 (9.43) (33.88)
Provision for Taxation 799.00 734.00 302.05
Profit after Tax (PAT) 1444.45 1349.90 872.73
PAT Growth(%) 72.92 (6.54) (35.35)
Equity Share Capital 360.86 442.15 442.15
Reserves & Surplus 2464.14 11290.16 11955.97
Net worth 2825.00 11732.31 12398.12
Net Worth growth(%) 79.00 315.00 5.67
Gross Fixed Assets 3556.94 4396.71 13474.42
Net Fixed Assets 2399.15 2738.76 10876.52
Total Fixed Assets 3111.31 7222.80 11492.18
KEY INDICATORS
Eamings per share (EPS) Rs. 39 Rs. 7 Rs. 4
Debt equity ratio 0.36 0.33 0.31
Operating Margin(%) 51.88 47.13 43.59
220
Net Profit Margin(%) 27.51 24.68 14.63
Return on Networth (%) 51.13 1!.50 7.03
Revenue
Revenue (ie income from testing and analysis services) has posted a growth of
9%. This is because domestic operations that comprise 60% of the company's operations
grew by 8% and exports which comprise 40% of the operations recorded a growth of 2%.
Other Income
Other Income mainly comprised Interest on deposits with banks, Gains on
exchange fluctuations, Interest received on electricity consumption deposit and
Miscellaneous Receipts. Interest on deposits with banks increased by Rs. 271 1akhs,
Gains on exchange fluctuations posted an increase ofRs. 112.61 lakhs, Interest received
on electricity consumption deposit increased by Rs. 2.45 1akhs and miscellaneous receipts
increased by Rs. 4.6 lakhs. Thus, enabling other income to account for the fourfold
increase in Total Income.
Earnings before interest, depreciation, taxation and amortisation (EBIDTA)
EBIDTA for the year grew by marginal 0.8% toRs. 2600.08 lakhs as against Rs.
2577.78 in the previous year. This is because the payments and benefits to employees
increased by Rs. 315.19 lakhs as 60 new employees were hired by the company during
the year and the Administrative, Selling and General Expenses increased by Rs. 263
lakhs and testing and analysis expenditure also increased by Rs. 285 lakhs whereas the
Total Income of the firm posted an increase of only Rs. 885.53 lakhs which is almost
equivalent to the increase in expenses.
Operating Margin
During the year, the Analytical and Clinical Reference Lab facilities have been
shifted from the existing Cherlapally Facility to the newly established Life Sciences
Facility in S.P.Biotech Park, Genome Valley, Hyderabad and started commercial
operations from September, 2006. Facility at Cherlapally has been taken up for
renovation to increase the Capacity for its Clinical Research activities. In addition, the
company has focused on stabilization of its operations and achieving compliance with
enhanced quality standards ofGMP at its new facility. It is because of the time loss in the
221
above stated areas that have affected the EBIDT A and in tum the operating margin has
declined to 43.59% as against 47.13% during the previous year.
Profit after Tax (PAT)
Profit after tax (including deferred tax) stood at Rs.872. 73 Lakhs as against Rs.
1349.90 Lakhs of previous year. The 35.35% fall in the net profits of the company is due
to additional impact of interest cost and depreciation on the investments of the Life
Sciences facility, on its commissioning during the year.
Net Profit Margin
The net profit margin of the company which was 24.68% during the previous year
decreased to 14.63%. This is on account of the decrease in the Profit afterTax.
Earnings per Share (EPS)
Earnings per Share for the year work out to Rs.4 per share as against Rs. 7 last
year.
Debt Equity Ratio
Debt-equity ratio as of 31st March, 2007 was at 0.31, as against 0.33 during the
previous year. The equity share capital is same as· the previous year but the reserves and
surplus have increased by 6% but the loan funds decreased by 5%. Thus, maintaining the
debt equity ratio at almost the same level.
Return on Net Worth
Return on Net Worth has been decreasing over the last 3 years. It was 11.5 %
during the previous year as against 7% during 2006-07. This is because the Profit after
Tax has declined significantly during the previous year (35.35%), as the company has
shifted operations to a new plant and made large investments to renovate the old one. The
company must start capitalizing on the expanded facilities as soon as possible in order to
regain its profits, keep the shareholders happy and enhance their worth to the maximum.
4.20.5 SHASUN CHEl\IICALS PVT. LTD.
Vintage: Shasun Chemicals (Madras) Private Limited was incorporated as a private
limited company, in Chennai.
Focus: Shasun has emerged as a key player in vanous service segments m the
phannaceutical field besides APls and intennediaries, and is strengthening its offer of
contract research, custom synthesis, contract manufacturing and contract fonnulation
222
services to clients. Shasun in its endeavour to become a true one-stop shop for global
phanna companies, is evolving to become a complete service provider, offering services
right from the discovery stage to manufacturing fonnulations.
Product uses: The company is in the manufacture of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drug (NSAID) used for relief of symptoms of arthritis, primary dysmenorrhea and fever.
It also manufactures drugs that are used in the treatment of stomach acidity and of high
blood pressure in order to reduce the risk of stroke and heart attack.
Infrastructure
Shasun Research Center (SRC) is Shasun's state-of-the-art research & development
center established at Keelakottaiyur, around 35 km from Chennai.
The company has two facilities at Pondicherry, one of which 1s dedicated for the
manufacture of Ibuprofen and the other to handle Oral Solid Dosages.
Spread over 64000 sq. meters, the facility at Cuddalore manufactures anti-ulceratives
Nizatidine and Ranitidine as well as excipients.
Shasun Pharma Solutions, UK is the vertically integrated chemistry partuer for the
pharmaceutical industry. Its services include innovative process research and
development, rapid response small scale manufacture for clinical trial supply and full
scale commercial manufacture of .advanced intermediates and API's, all with seamless
technology transfer.
Regulatory compliance: The facilities at Pondicherry and Cuddalore are FDA compliant
and ISO certified whereas the UK facility is FDA and cGMP compliant.
Manpower: The company recruits professionals of high academic achievement,
experience and behavioral competencies across the operations, research and marketing
functions.
Clients: Global phannaceutical companies including (but not limited to) Aventis, Abbott,
Critical Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, GSK, Reliant Phamm and Reckitt & Benckiser as well as
a significant portfolio of emerging pharmaceutical companies.
223
Three vears financials at a !!lance ' ' (Rs in Lakhs) . ' 2004 -OS 2005-06 2006-07
Sales (Net) 31874.20 34903.40 40591.00
Sales growth (%) 24.39 9.50 16.29
Other Income 556.10 189.00 417.30
Total Income 32793.40 35903.10 40887.40
Total Income growth (%) 22.56 9.48 13.88
EBIDTA 6922.50 7118.00 7084.00
Interest 337.80 493.60 540.90
Depreciation 2159.00 2314.50 2508.80
Profit Before Tax (PBT) 4425.70 4309.90 4034.20
PBT Growth(%) 40.00 (2.62) (6.39)
Provision for Taxation 1321.30 659.50 206.00
Profit after Tax (PAT) 3104.40 3650.40 3828.20
PAT Growth(%) 30.23 17.60 4.87
Equity Share Capital 915.20 962.10 964.20
Reserves & Surplus 12710.30 16970.10 19908.10
Net worth 13844.60 17985.20 21133.80
Net Worth growth (%) 22.63 29.91 17.50
Gross Fixed Assets 26864.40 29358.10 32798.60
Net Fixed Assets 15647.30 17474.90 17825.30
Total Fixed Assets 17346.10 17694.50 18831.40
KEY INDICATORS
Earnings per share (EPS) Rs. 6.77 Rs. 7.78 Rs. 7.93
Debt equity ratio 0.65 0.41 0.49
Operating Margin(%) 2!.77 20.39 17.45
Net Profit Margin(%) 9.00 10.00 9.00
Return on Networth (%) 22.00 20.00 18.00
224
Turnover
During the year Shasun achieved a turnover of Rs. 40591 lakhs, recording an
increase of 16.29% over the previous year. This revenue growth of Shasun Pharma
Solutions is mainly due to a significant improvement in product base and customers as
the company successfully introduced a large number of customer compounds into their
drug development pipeline. Sale of bulk drugs and intennediates constitute 95% of the
total sales which recorded an increase of 13%, by product sales constituting a miniscule
2% of the total sales recorded and increase of 27% and trade sales which constitute the
remaining 3% of the total sales increased phenomenally by 603%.
Other Income
Other Income mainly comprised Contract Manufacturing and development and
Contract Research fee and export incentives available to the company. Contract
Manufacturing and development fees increased by 51% whereas Contract research fees
posted an increase of 13% and export incentives decreased by 29%. As a result of the
consolidated increase in turnover and other. income, the total income increased by
13.88%.
Earnings before interest, depreciation, taxation and amortisation (EBIDTA)
EBIDTA for the year declined marginally by about 0.5% to Rs. 7084 lakhs as
against Rs. 7118 lakh~ during the previous year. In spite of a growth in revenues
EBIDTA decreased on account of the company completing commissioning, validation
and regulatory inspections on one hand and initiated development and manufacture in
their new state-of-the-art formulations unit on the other, which resulted in an increase of
the manufacturing cost for the company. And as new products were introduced during the
year, Research and Development costs also increased substantially, thus pulling down the
EBIDTA.
Operating Margin
The Operating margin is 17.45% as against 20.39% during the previous year. This
is mainly on account of the fall in EBIDT A and increased costs in comparison to the
previous year.
225
Profit after Tax (PAT)
Profit after Tax (PAT) grew by about 4.87% to Rs.3828.20 lakhs as against
Rs.3650.40 lakhs during the previous year. This is attributed to the increase in the
company's turnover and the reduction in the provision for current taxation and fringe
benefit tax paid by the company during the current year, as compared to the previous
year.
Net Profit Margin
The net profit margin of the company which was I 0% during the previous year
decreased to 10%. This is attributed to the growth in sales but not a commensurate
increase in Profit after Tax.
Earnings per Share (EPS)
Earnings per Share for the year work out to Rs.7.93 per share as against Rs. 7.78
last year.
Debt Equity Ratio
Debt-equity ratio as on 31st March, 2007 was at 0.49, as against 0.47 during the
previous year. This marginal increase is due to a 546% increase in the Unsecured Loans
(as the company borrowed to invest in excess of Rs. 8700 lakhs to support although the
Secured Loans decreased by 5.16% (as the company repaid Rs. 2170 lakhs of debt) and
the Shareholders' funds increased by I 7.5% (as the company allotted I,05,759 shares of
Rs. 2/- each to its employees under ESOP). This is why the ratio increased inspite of the
business growth of the company.
Return on Net Worth
Return on Net Worth has decreased to 18% as compared to 20% during the
previous year, thus making the company less profitable for the shareholders. However,
this year the company paid an interim dividend of 0.80 for each equity share of Rs. 2/-. in
addition to the a final dividend of Re. 0.90 per equity share of Rs. 2 each, showing that
the company values its shareholders and is consistently trying to enhance their value.
226
4.21 Strategies for financing CRAMS
4.21.1 Lending to midsize pharmaceutical companies is a viable
proposition as these companies have a strong parentage
India with its intrinsic competitive advantages remains as one of the most
preferred outsourcing destinations and is now playing a vital role in manufacturing as
well as drug development value chain of various innovator companies. It has become a
strategic imperative for global pharrna companies to make India an integral part of their
manufacturing value chain to maintain lean cost structures and combat intense
competition in the global generics industry. Besides, pharrna multinationals are also
increasingly using India as a base for exports not only to the immediate neighbouring
markets, but also to other markets, around the world such as Japan, South Africa, Latin
America and Europe. This shows that the mid sized Indian pharrna companies have a
strong parentage and backing as they are grabbing multi-million dollar contracts from
pharmaceutical MNCs, thus making lending to these companies a viable proposition for
the bank.
4.21.2 Capitalize on the increasing R&D spends of the pharmaceutical
companies
New R&D setups with excellent infrastructure are coming up in various regions
of the country as a result of the government policy initiatives for strengthening R&D in
phanna by way of fiscal incentives and other steps to strengthen regulatory mechanism.
In addition to this, the average R&D spend of two percent turnover in the sector of more
and more ph arm a companies is increasing to over seven percent of their turnover which is
a noteworthy achievement. This is also an extremely profitable opportunity that ECG can
capitalize on to reap the benefits that the growth in the sector can offer.
4.21.3 Strategic Shift in the industry holds immense opportunity for the
financial institutions
The predicted strategic shift in the industry like Indian majors moving up the
value chain and entering into partnerships involve early-stage licensing and risk sharing,
227
focusing on factors such as quality, timeliness and value-added services along with cost
advantage, and preparing themselves to become a one stop solution for their clients will
also call for great fund requirements. This is where the bank can play a vital role by
offering their lending services to these companies.
228