Understanding Brazil’s Service Guideline #37 for the Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Pharmaceutical Products and Processes

On September 25, 2017, the Director of the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) issued internal guidelines (Orientação de Serviço #37/2017) regarding the procedures to be used by the agency when examining patent applications claiming pharmaceutical products and processes in light of public health (in accordance with Article 229-C of Patent Statute #9,279/96, Resolution RDC #168, of 2017, the Joint Ordinance ANVISA/INPI #001, of 2017, and Ordinance GM/MS #736, of 2014).  According to these guidelines, ANVISA will follow the following procedures when reviewing applications claiming pharmaceutical products and processes.

  1. Upon receipt of a patent application from the Brazilian Patent Office (Instituto National da Propriedade Industrial (INPI)), ANVISA will assess the subject matter of the application to verify compliance with the provisions of Article 229-C of IP Law #9,279/96. Article 229-C provides that pharmaceutical patent applications shall receive a prior approval by ANVISA (often referred to as “prior approval” or “prior consent”). Specifically, Article 229-C provides that: “The grant of patents for pharmaceutical products and processes shall depend upon the prior approval from the National Sanitary Vigilance Agency.” 
  1. Once it is determined that prior approval or prior consent by ANVISA is required, an application is assessed with respect to its (1) health risk; and (2) interest under the drug or pharmaceutical assistance policies within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). 
  1. The health risk of the application is assessed by determining whether the pharmaceutical product or process claimed comprises or results in substances included in List E (which is a list of prohibited plants which may give rise to narcotic and/or psychotropic substances) or List F (a list of substances banned in Brazil) based on Ordinance SVS/MS #344, of 12 May 1998, which relates to plants and substances (including salts and isomers thereof) that are prohibited for use in the country. Applications which do not claim a pharmaceutical product or process that comprise or result in substances included in Lists E or F are not considered to present a health risk.  If the application is considered to present a health risk, ANVISA will deny prior consent or prior approval and return the application to INPI, which will dismiss the application. 
  1. After determination of the absence of health risk, the application is reviewed to determine whether or not the pharmaceutical product or process is of interest to the drug or pharmaceutical assistance policies under SUS. An application is determined to be of interest to the drug policy or pharmaceutical assistance policy under SUS when:
    • The subject matter is related to one of therapeutic applications defined by Ordinance MS/GM #736, of 2014 as listed in Annex I (provided below); or
    • It is related to a product incorporated into SUS (except for drugs that are part of the Basic Component of Pharmaceutical Assistance (CBAF), which is guided by the National List of Essential Medicines (RENAME) in force); or
    • It is related to a product of potential interest to the SUS according to Annex II (provided below).

If the application is of no interest to the healthcare policy, ANVISA will grant prior consent or prior approval and send the application back to INPI for further processing.  However, if an application is determined to be of interest to the drug or pharmaceutical policies under SUS, ANVISA will send the application back to INPI for further processing along with a report providing an analysis of the patentability requirements to be used by INPI during examination.

An important take away is that according to the service guidelines, ANVISA is able to provide an opinion addressing the patentability requirements of applications claiming pharmaceutical products or processes.  Regrettably, this is a continued attempt by ANVISA to try and  work around case law that has clearly established that the agency is not allowed to evaluate the patentability requirements of such applications under Article 229-C.

Annex I 

Viral Diseases (antiviral and antiretroviral diseases)

Neglected diseases:

Dengue

Chagas Disease

Schistosomiasis

Rocky Mountain spotted fever

Filariosis

Leprosy

Leishmaniasis

Malaria

Systemic mycoses

Tuberculosis

Neurodegenerative diseases

Alzheimer’s

Parkinson’s

Immunosuppressants

Rheumatoid arthritis

Transplant rejection

Mental diseases (antipsychotics/anticonvulsants)

Epilepsy

Psychosis / Schizophrenia

Neoplasias / Cancer (Oncology products)

Products obtained by biological routes

Provided that the therapeutic application is included in ordinance GM/MS 736/14

Vaccines and sera

Vaccines of the National Immunization Program

BCG vaccine

Hepatitis B vaccine

Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus Influenza B vaccine

Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine

Polio vaccine (VIP / VOP)

Pneumococcal vaccine (Pneumo 10, PN 23)

Human rotavirus vaccine

Meningococcal C vaccine

Yellow Fever vaccine

Hepatitis A vaccine

Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine

Diphtheria and tetanus vaccine

HPV vaccine

Influenza vaccine

Rabies vaccine

Vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases

Vaccines for neglected diseases

Vaccines for cancer

Hemoderivatives

Plasma concentration of factor VIII

Von Willebrand factor

Prothrombin complex (partially activated or human)

Recombinant activated factor VII concentrate

Plasma and recombinant factor concentrate

Plasma concentration of factor IX

Factor XIII concentrate

Excluded:  Fibrinogen, Tranexamic Acid and Desmopressin Acetate

Annex II

            Roadmap to identify patent applications of potential interest for SUS

  1. The patent application, to be identified as of potential interest to SUS, in addition to complying with Article 6 herein, should also comply with at least one of the following criteria:
    • Be related to a product registered with a sanitary authority of any country or region;
    • Be related to a substance under an active phase II clinical trial or higher, in any country or region, for a therapeutic application of interest to SUS;
    • Be related to high-cost drug that is part of the Specialized Component of Pharmaceutical Assistance (CEAF);
    • Be related to the drug provided in Partnership for Productive Development (PDP) or equivalent;
    • Be related to a request for priority examination made by the Ministry to Health to the INPI;
    • Has been filed with INPI less than six years ago.
  2. The patent application included in item A above may be exempted from a patentability examination for the purposes of supportive data if the application satisfies any of the below:
    • The product has its incorporation into SUS denied by the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies (CONITEC); or
    • The product is excluded from SUS; or
    • The invention is unlikely to be incorporated into SUS after conducting a prospective analysis.

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for further updates on ANVISA and prior approval or consent in Brazil.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues of Licks Attorneys.

 

Two Important Decisions Addressing ANVISA’s Prior Approval of Pharmaceutical Patents in Brazil

In the second half of 2016, two very interesting decisions were issued by the federal courts in Brazil against the Brazilian Food and Drug Agency (ANVISA) involving the prior approval of patent applications claiming pharmaceutical products.  These decisions bring some very good news to pharmaceutical patent owners who have struggled for years with ANVISA while trying to protect their pharmaceutical patents in this country. 

In the decisions, Genentech and Novartis each obtained preliminary injunctions against ANVISA in cases of prior approval of their patent applications under Article 229-C of the Brazilian Patent Statute (Additional information about each of the decisions can be found here:  novartisdecision genentechdecision).  Specifically, Novartis’ patent application claims fingolimod (Gilenya) and Genentech’s application claims bevacizumab (Avastin). 

Two different trial judges affirmed that ANVISA did not have the authority to examine patentability requirements under Article 229-C of the Patent Statute.  In the decision involving Genentech’s application, the judge, the Honorable Diana Silva, limited ANVISA’s role during the prior approval process to only aspects involving public health. The decision also stated that the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, namely, the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) is the sole legitimate agency to examine the patentability requirements of patent applications directed to pharmaceutical products. 

The decision involving Novartis’ application is an important case for pharmaceutical companies facing the issues of backlog and pendency of their patent applications in Brazil.  Specifically, in this case, Novartis sought a preliminary injunction against ANVISA, claiming that the agency was taking an unreasonable amount of time to issue a decision regarding prior approval.  Additionally, Novartis also requested preventive measures against the agency to prevent it from examining the application for compliance with patentability requirements under the Brazilian Patent Statute (which is the function of INPI).   The judge, the Honorable Iolete Oliveira, accepted  Novartis’ arguments and granted a preliminary injunction ordering ANVISA to:  (1) analyze the prior approval of the patent application within 15 days; and (2) abstain from examining the application for compliance with any patentability requirements but focus instead only on aspects of public health. 

Both of these decisions highlight that the Brazilian federal courts are willing to limit ANVISA’s role under the prior approval analysis.  The Novartis case establishes important precedent that can be used by other companies currently waiting ANVISA’s decision on prior approval analysis. 

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for continuing updates on Brazil’s prior approval of pharmaceutical patent applications.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues Pinho, LLM candidate at Stanford University.