Pfizer defends lawsuit vs gov't over 'Norvasc' importation

US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. said on Wednesday that its lawsuit against the government for importing cheaper copies from India of an anti-hypertension drug that it sells in the Philippines was not meant to undermine patients’ health and bar access to lower-priced medicine. Pfizer said in a statement that while the government has said the importation was meant to develop a generic version of "Norvasc", the medicine has reportedly become available in Philippine International Trade Corporation (PITC) outlets. Four Filipino users of Pfizer’s anti-hypertension drug on Tuesday asked a Makati court to intervene in the case filed by the US firm against the PITC and the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) for importing samples of the drug from India at less than half the price it is sold in the Philippines. Pfizer’s Philippine patent over Norvasc will expire on June 2007 and the US company wants the government not to sell it until then. "Pfizer sought the assistance of the Philippine legal system after the PITC and the BFAD failed to give any assurance that marketing, distribution and sale would not occur until the patent of Norvasc expires," Pfizer said. "For two years, as part of a generous discount program, Norvasc has been available at 50 percent of recommended retail price. Pfizer though, is prohibited from directly informing the public of these discounts while the PITC is freely available to advertise its drug prices," said the company. The PITC controls "Botika ng Bayan" outlets, a project of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, which offer lower-priced drugs. Pfizer said that the government imported Norvasc from "unauthorized sources" and this action places "serious concerns for patients’ safety" because the medicine is backed up extensive clinical trials. Norvasc users and non-government organizations have appealed to Pfizer to withdraw the lawsuit against the government. The petitioners argued that the government was not violating Pfizer’s intellectual property rights because even the World Trade Organization (WTO) has said that public health should take precedence over patent ownership. -GMANews.TV