Closing down all the generic drug web sites/and finding open sites for generic drugs

I suppose, but is it any more legit than any other counterfit form of Viagra? If it isn’t made by Pfizer, it infringes on their patent and is counterfit.

Pfizer lost the patent rights in the UK I believe, although they still have the U.S.A. By the balls for a few years more:

http://news.bbc .co.uk/1/hi/bus … ess/1013244.stm

I heard that Silagra might be a better "generic" than Kamagra is, I’ll have to try it out sometime although I’m VERY happy with my stash of "K" for the time being.
On a side note has anyone taken Viagra/Silagra/Cialis with ephedrine HCL before? It sounds pretty dangerous, but apparently Viagra lowers blood pressure and ephedrine raises it. It might either cancel each other out, or get the best of both worlds. I’m thinking of trying it out in SMALL doses, looking for the euphoric, horny feeling of eph, without the side effects of a shrunken "unit".

You are coming to the wrong conclusion. The article you sited was from the year 2000. It was a ruling that allowed other companies to develop similar drugs based on science that was already known. In other words Pfizer has the rights to the molicule that is sildenafil, but it does not have exculsivity on other molicules that work similarly, since knowledge of the general chemistry was known in the public domain before Pfizers patent.
Lilly brought the suit, which allowed them to come out with their own drug, Cialis.

“In a case brought by Pfizer’s US competitors Eli Lilly and Icos Corporation, the High Court in London ruled that the 1993 patent on the main ingredient of the drug (Sildenafil Citrate) was invalid.”

Thats why the Indian company’s can sell “Sildenafil Citrate”(main ingredient)-as long as they give the product a different name they can get away with it. It’s a bit shady, but I’m not complaining.

Thats good that you read the first couple of lines of the article, now read the rest.

.

And

You are wrong about Indian produced Sildenafil. It does violate the paptent laws.

So, we have a JUDGE ruling on “Sildenafil Citrate” as an Invalid patent on one side, we then have PFIZER saying that they still retain “rights” over the “molecular structure” which forms “VIAGRA” on the other. This is the way I see things (at the moment).

“VIAGRA”:
In addition to sildenafil citrate, each VIAGRA tablet contains the following inactive ingredients: microcrystalline cellulose, calcium hydrogen phosphate anhydrous, croscarmellose sodium, magnesium stearate, hypromellose, titanium dioxide, lactose, glycerol triacetate, indigo carmine aluminium lake (CI 73015). VIAGRA tablets may contain PF0102.—-patent is still valid—-according to PFIZER.

“SILDENAFIL CITRATE”
Sildenafil Citrate.—-patent is invalid—-according to JUDGE.

Dude, think about it. That was 6 years ago and Viagra is one of the most popular prescription drugs in the world. Don’t you think that if the patent was invalid, there would be generic sildenafil sold legally in the US and Europe from legitimate firms? Popular prescription drugs that lose their patents (usually from expiration) have generics on the market the same day the patent expires. Of course Sildenafil is a patented drug, and that is why only Pfizer sells it legally.

I know a little about patents, so let me try to clarify this a bit more. When a patent is written, the patent includes “claims” which define the scope of the patent. Attorneys try to make the claims as broad as possible, because that makes it harder for others to come up with similar inventions without infringing on the patent. For example, suppose you invented a hat, that was a metal bucket with one side cut and folded up so you could see out of it. The folded up part would also provide shade. In your patent, you would write several claims, some very broad and others more specific. So your broad claim would be something like:
1. “An appurtenance, to rest upon the head of an individual, with a protrusion from said appurtenance, extending outwardly to block sun from the face of the wearer.”
then a more specific claim:
2. A hat made from metal formed in a cylindrical shape with a flat surface which makes up the top of the hat, and a curved surface attached perpendicularly to form the sides of the hat. The forward portion of the side bla bla bla etc.

When you send in the patent application, the patent office could accept all the claims or reject some. Claim 1 should be rejected because it describes any hat with a brim, so therefore does not describe a novel invention.
If all the claims are accepted, then they can be challenged. In this case, claim one would be challenged by every hat manufacturer.
Now for the case of Pfizer, which I am not familiar with, other than the report you referenced Shaguar, I read the report to clearly state that a more general claim has been rejected by the patent court, while the specific claims are still valid. For example, the general claim for the Pfizer patent was probably something like:
1. A chemical of the general structure bla bla, which has an active site, bla bla, that functions to inhibit the action of PDE5 in penile tissue and result in increased vasodilation of said tissue.
2. A chemical of the following structure (description of Sildenafil) which will bla bla bla………….

Claim 1, as I wrote it, would apply to any chemical that works the same way as sildenafil. In other words, all the PDE5 inhibitors have an active site on the molecule which is similar in how it interacts with your body chemicals. In other words, Levitra, Cialis and Viagra, all are the same “type” of drug.
Claim 2 is specific to Sildenafil.

So, Claim 1 prevents Lilly from marketing Cialis. The judge throws out claim 1, because it is shown in court that this class of chemical was known to perform this specific action. This knowledge was in “the public domain” before the time of Pfizers patent application.
This hurt Pfizer because it meant that they would no longer have a monopoly in the market of PDE5 type ED drugs.
But the specific molecule they developed as a PDE5 inhibitor, Sildenafil, is still protected under their patent until the year 2013. Re-read the article with this explanation in mind and then you will understand the seemingly contradictory statements regarding the judge and the Pfizer spokesperson.

I must agree with you, It would have made big news everywhere. Hmmmm there would have been alot more women walking around like John Wayne too come to think of it :D . So, the Indian companies can produce it and sell it due to their own “unique” patent laws, which is the only loophole that has let them get away with it? Very complicated but interesting. I take it back, Kamagra is not “legit” in that sense even though it works very well, nice post mravg.

International patent law is very confusing but in general, each country has its own laws and a patent in the US is only applicable to the US. Each country approves its own patents, but there is a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) which many countries abide by, which allows one to file an application to all member countries simultaneously. Each country makes its own decision whether or not to approve the patent. Member countries use existing patents from other countries as “Prior art” when evaluating new applications. In other words, a Frenchman could not get a French patent on his invention if it infringes on an existing patent from another member country, even if there is not French patent on that invention.
In the case of India, the US or the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) can not apply its laws to the Sovreign nation of India. So we can not shut down a factory that violates the PCT or other international laws. However, the Sildenafil they make is illegal according to our laws, so sale or possession of that material in the United states, or in PCT member countries, is illegal.

It sounds like I am some kind of expert but I am not. If anyone is more knowledgable about this and would like to correct me, please do.
I am not a patent attorney, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. :)

This might all be correct. But it’s not the story about Indian brands actually being - from a U.S. perspective - infringing generics.

India’s patent law is different. According to Indian patent law, the patent protects a certain way of producing a substance, the steps in manufacturing it. In India, if you are capable to find a different production sequence to get the same substance, you are outside of the patent protection. That’s the reason for the existance of brands like Kamagra… as far as I know ;)

PS: I (!!!) know a bit about patents :) I’ve been working as a Patent Lawyer before turning to Capital Markets Law Wohooooo :D

What you say about Indian law may be true, but that only makes it legal in India, to manufacture these counterfit brands. The actual molecule (sildenafil) is protected under the Pfizer patent recognized in the US and PCT nations. So that means the Sildenafil made in India is accepted in India as legal, but not outside of India. Would you agree with that?

Pfizer can not change India’s laws, but US and EU laws protect Pfizer from these infringing products. Pfizer won a blanket injunction against imported sildenafil in a 1994 court decision, due to patent infringement. I will try to find the link.

Yes Sir ;)

Two convicted over internet drug ring

April 18, 2006

A federal jury convicted two men who allegedly used the Internet to illegally peddle drugs worldwide to tens of thousands of people.

The jury deliberated a day following a seven-week trial before convicting Akhil Bansal and Fred Mullinix on all counts.

Prosecutors said Monday that Bansal, a Temple University graduate student, and his physician father, Brij Bhushan Bansal, currently in custody in India, headed the network.

Orders were filled for millions of pills placed by more than 4,500 buyers through at least 20 Web sites, one of which was operated by Mullinix, officials said.

"This case shows us how the Internet has opened the door to an unregulated universe from which anyone with access to a computer can purchase just about anything," U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan said. "It’s a dangerous way to bypass the safeguards that are in place to protect the public."

Mullinix’s attorney, Steven Laver, said he planned to appeal. Akhil Bansal’s attorney, Richard R. Harris, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Seventeen people, including Brij Bansal and three of his children, were charged last April with selling prescription drugs to American buyers through online pharmacy sites and with laundering millions of dollars in proceeds.

Three other defendants are awaiting trial, and the others have either pleaded guilty or are awaiting extradition from Australia or India, Meehan said.

Authorities said the Bansals allegedly obtained the drugs in India and sent them to the United States, where they were redistributed.

Drugs meant to aid sexual dysfunction were among the most popular in the scheme, Meehan has said.

AP

LINK

This case shows us how the Internet has opened the door to an unregulated universe from which anyone with access to a computer can purchase just about anything :thumbs: