If Gilead fears completely losing their market to generics, they may try to lock in a sale volume at a particular price before the court’s decision.

That’s what was going on when they offered the Indian, Egyptian and Brazilian governments the $900 price. They specifically contracted the 11 Indian companies to tie their hands in case the patent process failed (as it did, but then got reversed.) They didn’t hold to the $900 offer in Brazil.

They came to the bargaining table in Australia when they feared the word about generics was spreading too fast there.

Somehow it was to be expected that the decision would not directly favor one of the sides.

Nevertheless, looking at the full half of the glass, I would say that the hearing revealed that:
– Gilead tried to obtain more coverage in the field of HCV with the let’s call it, “old patent”. Now the coverage has been restricted.
– The news about Gilead trying to make huge amounts of money (aka GREED) will spread faster in Europe and worldwide.
– Doctors from Europe will hear that in the month of October, in Germany, Doctors of the World spoke about the solution provided by HCV GENERIC DRUGS to treat HCV, thus once more it will be emphasized that the generic drugs are REAL and EFFECTIVE and not ghosts .
– BIG PHARMA companies are NOT INTANGIBLE
– The movement started in Germany clearly signals (as in other parts of the world as well) that people started to see the high prices of the drugs as a THREAT to the healthcare systems and may no longer be fooled by the monopoly power granted by the patent.

Cheers,
RHF

I place here an illustration taken from another thread, just to pinpoint the fact that many people still think today that LIFE surrounds the Intellectual Property and may not, yet, see that LIFE must be the very essence when talking about health (sorry for the questionable quality of the drawing):

It seems that both parts claim victory ….
According to this article, one noticeable effect was that the patent for Sofosbuvir will probaly expire 4 years sooner (2024 instead of 202:

European regulator amends some Gilead hep C patent claims

(@Vororo: it is the same link you posted. I thought it would be good to put it here again, because in between the article was updated)

…. “SHOW MUST GO ON !!!” so that people will know more and more about generics.

BR
RHF.

Hi Vororo,

Politics is kind of confusing. Perhaps soon there will be more information about the updated/modified patent for Sofosbuvir. Till then I see the actions of MdM as:
– they let the world know that Gileads practices extremely high prices for a drug that can be much much cheaper produced;
– MdM announced that “we reduced with 4 years the time window until generics will enter the market”. To this Gilead reponds “no, you didn’t because we have a patent”. Only this simple exchange of lines demonstrates that the reason why HCV patients are currently not being mass treated is caused by commercial and financial reasons. And this is a clear signal to the governments about how Gilead and other Big Pharma companies are playing the song of the patent. I would say that the truth about Big Pharma and the high prices has been revealed at an OFFICIAL LEVEL. It strengthens also the fact that political intervention from the governments is further necessary.

BR
RHF

I am not sure if this is an effect of the sofosbuvir patent challenge made by MdM, but Germany is now reviving an old draft of a law that should limit the earnings of Pharma companies in the first year when a new expensive drug is launched.
German news here: http://www.journalmed.de/newsview.php?id=49315

Google Translation text here:

Government is launching a new price break for medicines

For new, expensive medicines, a price limit of 250 million euros will be applied in the first year after market launch. This is the draft law for the strengthening of the medicines supply, the Federal Cabinet decided on Wednesday in Berlin. Today, new medicines can be sold at a price free of pharmaceutical companies before their benefits are officially assessed and negotiated through their reimbursement. In the first year, some funds generate enormous gross sales of several hundred million euros.
The law of Health Minister Hermann Gröhe (CDU) also provides that the negotiated reimbursement rates remain secret. Physicians should be better informed about the use of new resources for individual patient groups. In addition, Gröhe wants to ban tenders from the health insurance companies, in which pharmacies can participate, which produce cytostatics – ie special cancer drugs – and supply oncologists with outpatient care. Now the parliamentary deliberations on the draft law begin.

Cheers,
RHF