India's Top Court Rejects Novartis Patent Protection

India's top court has dismissed Swiss drugmaker Novartis's attempt to win patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec, a serious blow to Western pharmaceutical firms who are increasingly focusing on India to drive sales.

The decision also sets a benchmark for several intellectual property disputes in India, where many patented drugs are unaffordable for most of its 1.2 billion people, 40 percent of whom earn less than $1.25 a day.

India's domestic drugs market is the 14th largest globally, but with annual growth of 13-14 percent and the world's second biggest population, it has massive potential at a time when traditional developed markets have slowed down.

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling is likely to affect several other companies and their branded medicines.

Pfizer's cancer drug Sutent and Roche Holdings hepatitis C treatment Pegasys lost their patented status in India last year, and Monday's ruling will make it tougher for them to win back patent protection.

"Henceforth, multinational pharma companies are likely to want that their patents are first recognized in India before launch of a patented product," said Ameet Hariani, managing partner at Mumbai-based law firm Hariani & Co.

Novartis has previously that said it needs legal certainty if it is to plan further investment in drug research in India.

The ruling is a boost for healthcare activists who want the government to make medicines cheaper in a country where patented drugs constitute under 10 percent of total drug sales.

Novartis has been fighting since 2006 to win a patent for an amended form of Glivec. In 2009 it took its challenge against a law that bans patents on newer but not radically different forms of known drugs to the Supreme Court.

India has refused protection for Glivec on the grounds that it is not a new medicine but an amended version of a known compound. By contrast, the newer form of Glivec has been patented in nearly 40 countries including the United States, Russia and China.

The Supreme Court decided that Glivec does not satisfy the "novelty" aspect, Pravin Anand, lawyer for Novartis, told reporters.

Shares in Novartis India Ltd, the Indian unit of the drugmaker, fell over 5 percent after the verdict. They were down 4.63 percent at 571.10 rupees by 0528 GMT.

View the original article here

At DOMA Hearing, Chief Justice Suggests Gays Are Too Powerful For Equal Protection

During oral arguments this morning, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to at least entertain the argument by House Republicans that gays and lesbians are too politically powerful for constitutional protection.

Roberts suggested that gays and lesbians must be “politically powerful” because politicians are “falling all over themselves” to endorse gay marriage, according to a tweet by Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer. The brief by Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, had reasoned that gays and lesbians are winning political battles and “have the attention of lawmakers,” an absurd claim since the “power” assertion is factually inaccurate, and because such an argument would also cancel out protections for racial minorities and women.

Roberts and his fellow conservatives also expressed concern over the White House’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, with Kennedy calling it “very troubling” and Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing the Justice Department’s “new regime.”

By contrast, several of the court’s liberal justices expressed alarm over the impact of DOMA’s actual deprivation of federal marriage benefits on gays and lesbians, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the rights left for married couples after DOMA “skim milk” and questioning, “What kind of marriage is this?” Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed to evidence from a House of Representatives report that lawmakers passed DOMA with improper motives. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, repeatedly expressed a different concern with DOMA — that it impinged on state definitions of marriage.

View the original article here

Presidential Proclamation -- National Consumer Protection Week, 2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Over 4 years ago, widespread abuses in America's financial system nearly brought our economy to its knees. Millions saw their life savings erode, businesses shuttered their doors, and families were devastated by job loss and foreclosure. This crisis cast a harsh light on the breakdown in oversight that led to an epidemic of irresponsibility, and it highlighted the need for common-sense regulations to protect the vast majority of Americans from the reckless actions of a few. During National Consumer Protection Week, we remember those lessons, and we recognize that our shared prosperity depends on empowering all Americans to make sound decisions for themselves and their families.

My Administration is ramping up consumer protection throughout the economy. Last year, we established a new unit to combat fraud and investigate the abusive lending and mortgage packaging that led to the housing crisis. We launched the "Know Before You Owe" campaign to help students and their parents make smart decisions about paying for college. We cracked down on unscrupulous lenders and credit card companies that charge hidden fees. And we did away with the practice of adding pages of misleading fine print to important financial agreements.

We are also committed to helping consumers avoid scams, protect their personal information, and make good financial decisions. That is why agencies across the Federal Government joined with consumer advocates to launch www.NCPW.gov, an online resource that provides practical advice for managing finances and safeguarding against identity theft.

As the driving force behind our economy, consumers deserve clear rules, fair treatment, and full disclosure. Whether opening credit cards, buying cars, applying for mortgages, or taking out student loans, all Americans should have access to complete, concise information. This week, we resolve to strengthen consumer rights and build a more transparent, efficient, effective marketplace.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 3 through March 9, 2013, as National Consumer Protection Week. I call upon government officials, industry leaders, and advocates across the Nation to share information about consumer protection and provide our citizens with information about their rights as consumers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

Mrs. Obama joins a virtual conversation about Let’s Move!, her initiative to ensure our nation’s kids grow up healthy and reach their full potential.

The Open Government Partnership publishes the text of the President's directive extending whistleblower protections to the intelligence and national security communities, as requested by the community.

The Department of Labor celebrates its centennial anniversary and looks forward to continuing its important work on behalf on America's workers.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

GOP Senators Obstructing The Consumer Protection Bureau Receive Loads Of Wall Street Donations

43 Republican senators signed a letter last week saying that they would obstruct any nominee to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, regardless of qualifications, unless the CFPB is weakened. Republicans are essentially attempting to nullify a federal law via obstruction; Congress passed and President Obama signed a bill creating a CFPB, but the GOP is ensuring that it can’t function.

By weakening the CFPB, the GOP is doing the bidding of Wall Street’s biggest banks, which would have preferred that a regulator solely focused on consumer protection never come into being. Here are some facts and figures that Public Campaign pulled together on how much cash Wall Street has handed over to the 43 GOP’ers publicly obstructing Obama’s nominee:

– The 43 Senators have received $143 million in industry cash during their time in Washington.

– Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), boosted by his 2008 presidential bid, is the top recipient of financial industry cash of those signing the letter, with $36.7 million in donations from the industry. McConnell is second with $7.4 million in donations. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the ranking member of the Senate Banking committee, has received $2.4 million in industry cash. [...]

– The six Senators recently elected, or re-elected, in November who signed the letter — Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) — received nearly $7 million altogether in industry donations in the 2012 cycle. Hatch tops this list with $2 million raised from the industry for his last election.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who is one of two Republican senators that did not sign the letter, said last week that Richard Cordray, who was recess-appointed by Obama to be the first CFPB director, simply accede to the GOP’s hostage-taking and call for watering down his own agency.

View the original article here

What The Consumer Protection Bureau’s New Mortgage Rules Will And Won’t Do

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rolled out new rules today to clean up the mortgage servicing industry, which has been at the root of several scandals, including the use of the now-infamous “robo-signers.” The new rules will provide important protections for homeowners, no longer leaving them subject to the most pernicious mortgage servicing practices. Here’s what the rules will do:

– End dual tracking. This practice involves banks starting foreclosure proceedings on a homeowner at the same time that the homeowner is being evaluated for a mortgage modification. The end result is many homeowners lose their homes when they think they are receiving a modification. Under the rule, “Servicers cannot start a foreclosure proceeding if a borrower has already submitted a complete application for a loan modification or other alternative to foreclosure, and that application is still pending review.”

– Force balance transparency. The new rules call for clearer monthly mortgage statements and more advance warnings of changes like interest rate hikes. Servicers must also “promptly” credit payments that homeowners make.

– Limit “forced place” insurance. “Forced place” insurance is the insurance that lenders purchase on behalf of borrowers if they think there has been a lapse in coverage. The policies are often far more expensive than standard home insurance, and servicers receive a cut of the payments. Abuse of forced place insurance became a big industry during and after the buildup of the housing bubble: “From 2006 to 2011, direct earned premiums for lender-placed insurance more than tripled, to $3.1 billion from $954 million.” As the New York Times noted, “the cost [of forced place insurance] more or less ensures foreclosure for a household on the brink; it can also hurt a borrower’s chances for a loan modification.” Under the new rules, servicers must warn borrowers that a forced place purchase will occur and “If servicers buy the insurance but receive evidence that it was not needed, they must terminate it within fifteen days and refund the premiums.”

However, the new rules do not create a single point of contact for borrowers (who often get the runaround at banks by being passed off between different bank employees). The California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights includes a mandatory point of contact, as does a new bill Minnesota Democrats are trying to enact. The rules will not be implemented for another year, leading one housing advocate to say that the CFPB is just “providing mortgage servicers advance notice to do their dirty work.”

View the original article here

Corporate Lobby Threatens A Blizzard Of Litigation Attacking Wall Street Reform And Environmental Protection

Yesterday, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue delivered his “State of American Business” address, in which he laid out the wealthy corporate lobbying group’s agenda for the coming year. After using several questionable statistics to attack regulations intended to protect the environment or prevent Wall Street from triggering another economic crisis, Donohue’s speech includes a promise to unleash a barrage of well-compensated lawyers to help immunize corporate America from these regulations. “You are going to see us significantly expand the expertise in our law firm, the National Chamber Litigation Center and in other areas of our institution, in order to deal with regulations. Our preference is always to work within the legislative and regulatory processes and we do that on a daily basis. But when rights have been trampled on, or regulators have overstepped their bounds, we’ll take the necessary legal action.”

So long as the Supreme Court’s current majority sits, the Chamber’s threat needs to be taken seriously. One of the Chamber’s top attorneys, Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips, claimed in 2007 that “[e]xcept for the solicitor general representing the United States, no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.” If anything, this understates the corporate lobby’s success before the Roberts Court. According to a 2010 study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber’s victory rate before the Supreme Court spiked 15 points once Chief Justice Roberts took the Court’s center seat. In total the Court favors business interests 61 percent of the time.

Indeed, the Roberts Court is so favorable to the corporate lobby’s position that every single justice examined by the study was more likely to favor the Chamber’s position that the one who held that seat 25 years before:

If anything, the Roberts Court has become even more favorable to corporate interests since this study was conducted. In the term that concluded earlier this year, the Chamber went 7-0 before the justices — the first time since 1991 that the Chamber was undefeated in the nation’s highest Court.

View the original article here