South Africa: Patients' Rights: The Achilles Heel Of The Patient System? An Indian Perspective For South Africa

Last Updated: 7 June 2012
Article by Neil Kirby

Currently there is litigation between a numbers of parties concerning the application of a patent in respect of a cancer medicine in South Africa. The parties concerned include Sanofi Aventis SA (Proprietary) Limited and Cipla Medpro (Proprietary) Limited ("Cipla"). The particular medicine concerned is a generic medicine currently being made available by Cipla and referred to as Cipla Docetaxel. The appellants, amongst them Sanofi Aventis SA (Proprietary) Limited, are endeavouring to obtain interim interdicts against the respondents preventing the respondents from making available and selling the medicine concerned in so far as the generic medicine infringes a patent held by the appellants under South African patent number 93/8936 and entitled "New Taxoid-Based Compositions.

The litigation is based primarily, if not exclusively, on the provisions of the Patents Act No. 57 of 1978. One of the aspects that has been raised within the context of the litigation, now before the Supreme Court of Appeal, is whether or not patients' rights have a role to play in determining whether or not patents should be protected. It is the issue of patients' rights that may bring into sharp focus the balancing act that a court will ultimately have to strike between the property rights contained in section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 ("the Constitution") and the right to access healthcare in section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The current debate before the Supreme Court of Appeal follows debates in developing countries such as India and Brazil about the rights of patent holders of medicines, on the one hand, and the rights of generic manufacturers to sell medicines notwithstanding certain patent protections, on the other hand. The debates are premised on the rights of the Governments of developing countries to alter property regimes in order to facilitate, it is argued, the provision of medicine to and increase access to healthcare services for their populations.

The decisions of courts in other jurisdictions are also central to the issue of formulating the particular public interest arguments in the matter before the Supreme Court of Appeal, more particularly, the decision of Roche vs Cipla 159 (2009) DLT 243, MIPR 2009 (2) 1 ("the Indian decision"). The Indian decision is of great interest in relation to the stance that it intends to take on matters of access to cancer medicine for people living with HIV.

The Indian decision concerns the granting of an interdict in respect of the availability of a generic medicine in India pending the determination of a patent dispute. The Indian decision is a decision of the High Court of Delhi held at New Delhi and is an appeal decision. The Indian decision concerns a number of aspects concerning Indian patent law that are unique to this system of law based on the legislation applicable to patents in India. However, the Indian decision does deal with the issue of patients' rights in the context of the principles of "public interest.

The public interest is defined principally with reference to the harm that would ultimately be visited upon patients should a particular medicine become unavailable due to, in the Indian decision, a court granting an interdict. This harm is based on very particular evidence.

The evidence, in turn, is based on two primary premises: the first is how unique the medicine is in a particular market and the second is how successful the medicine is in treating a particular condition, which must ultimately be a medicine of a life-saving nature. The Indian decision summarises the decision of the first court before which the matter served in respect of the public interest as follows:–

"The Court cannot be unmindful of the general access to life-saving products and the possibility that such access would be denied if [an] injunction was granted. If the Court was of the opinion that the public interest in granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of an infringement action is outweighed by the public interest of ensuring easy and affordable access to a life saving drug, the balance should tilt in favour of the latter. In the instance case irreparable injury would be caused to the public if the injunction was granted as they would be deprived of the defendant's product. Several unknown persons who are not parties to the suit and who would be deprived of the life saving drug would not be able to be restituted in monetary terms for the damage that would be caused to them if the injunction was granted." (See paragraph 24 at page 9 of the Indian decision).

What emerges from the Indian decision are the criteria to be used to address issues concerning public interest in the context of patients' rights. In this regard, the criteria need to be considered carefully in relation to how these criteria relate to the provisions of section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution. These criteria are the following: –

  • the medicine in question must be a lifesaving medicine and used for a medical condition that has serious medical and social implications, such as cancer or HIV;
  • the unavailability of the medicine, due to the granting of an interdict or similar court action, would cause such harm to patients so as to result in harm that could never be remedied in any manner by an alternative medicinal substance or treatment;
  • the cost at which the medicine is being made available to the public and whether or not, based on the economic realities of the population that uses the medicine, that medicine is affordable. This is an important aspect of the matter as this is the counter argument to the argument that was raised in the Indian decision that "if the rights of a patentee are not respected then it would be contrary to the public interest of encouraging further research. Further it would discourage the requirement of disclosure which inheres in patent regime thereby creating a situation where opportunity of further innovation based on fundamental research on an existing patent product/process would be lost or unduly deferred." (See paragraph 72 on page 21 of the Indian decision). The High Court of Delhi rejected this as a basis for granting the interdict or dealing with the issue of public interest on the basis that "[t]his court is unable to accept the submissions of the plaintiffs on this aspect. The amendment to the Patents Act 1970 in 2005 introduced Section 83(e) which states that among the general principles applicable to the working of patented inventions regard shall be had 'that patents granted do not in any way prohibit Central Government in taking measures to promote public health' and under Section 83(g) 'that patents are granted to make the benefit of the patented invention available at reasonably affordable prices to the public.' Under Section 84 among the grounds on which a person can seek a compulsory license on a patent is that 'the patented invention is not available to the public at reasonably affordable price.' The element of public interest is therefore not alien to the scheme of the Patents Act 1970." One aspect that one needs to consider in South Africa is that our patent legislation may not contain similar provisions to that of the Indian statute;
  • the demand for the medicine in a particular jurisdiction, which is a reference to epidemiological data;
  • the consequences of depriving members of the public of the benefit of the medicine (see paragraph 79 of page 23 of the Indian decision). This onus is borne by the patent holder and must take into account the following –

    "A life-saving drug is in an exceptional position. There are often cases where a number of drugs exist alongside each other and are in general all equally efficacious for a particular ailment of disease. If the evidence shows it to be the fact that there may well be cases where it would make little, if any, difference to the public, apart from satisfying personal preference, whether a particular drug was no longer available or not, then in such a case it may well be proper to grant an injunction. At the other end of the scale, however, there is the unique life-saving drug where, in my judgment, it is at least very doubtful if the court in its discretion ever ought to grant an injunction and I cannot at present think of any circumstances where it should." (See paragraph 79 at page 23of the Indian decision);

  • evidence concerning the views of patients in relation to whether they are peculiarly sensitive to and fearful of changes in medicine regimes (see paragraph 79 on page 23 of the Indian decision);
  • evidence of what would occur if greater availability of the particular medicine in a particular country were to occur i.e. the relief imposed upon the disease burden of a particular country;
  • the availability and success rate of the medicine in a population; and
  • based on all that is set out above, whether or not the granting of an interdict or the refusal to grant an interdict would cause a disservice to the public, which is a blending of the position under Indian law with a decision of the United States Supreme Court in the matter of eBay Incorporated v MercExchange 547 US 288 [2006].

The conclusion of the Indian decision, in respect of the public interest, was that "[t]he question of general public access in [India] to life-saving drugs assumes great significance and the adverse impact on such access which the grant of injunction in a case like the instant one is likely to have, would have to be accounted for. This Court finds no ground to differ with the reasoning or the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge on this aspect." (See paragraph 85 on page 25 of the Indian decision).

A number of points are highlighted by this action and deserve consideration –

  • the issue of patients' rights may very well change the parameters of the debate about patents in South Africa as it has done in India;
  • whether or not one is comfortable that patients' rights should trump property rights and how one would balance the rights of patients with the rights of pharmaceutical manufacturers to protect their proprietary interests;
  • whether or not patients' rights always trumping proprietary interests is in the interests of future patients. Patient protection does facilitate and encourage further investment, research and development into new medicines, improvement in overall treatment regimens and facilitates access to aspects of treatment other than simply medicines such as medical devices, clinics, hospitals and similar centres of excellence.

The outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court of Appeal may very well influence political decision-making in so far as the power is already afforded to the Minister of Health ("the Minister"), in terms of section 15c(a) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act No. 101 of 1965, as amended, to take measures to ensure the supply of more affordable medicines. In terms of section 15c(a) the Minister is afforded the power to "prescribe conditions for the supply of more affordable medicines in certain circumstances so as to protect the health of the public, and in particular may ... may notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Patents Act, 1978 (Act No. 57 of 1978), determine that the rights with regards to any medicine under a patent granted in the Republic shall not extend to acts in respect of such medicine which is being put into the market by the owner of the medicine, or with his or her consent." In so far as such a remedy is already available within the confines of South African law, it may be argued that the necessity for the Supreme Court of Appeal to deal with issues concerning patent rights, within the context of medicines available within the Republic, is unnecessary as with proper motivation, the Minister may be in a position to deal more appropriately with proprietary rights in the interests of the health of the public.

What does remain evident is that the issue of patients' rights is securely on the healthcare agenda of developing countries. The potential clash in South Africa between patients' rights and property rights is now inevitable within a context of the Constitution and the manner in which that document, as the supreme law of the Republic, endeavours to balance the rights of property holders and cancer patients.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions