Although in both cases the licensee authorizes the donor to use its intellectual property in exchange for negotiated compensation, the exclusive and non-exclusive licenses relate to the degree of exclusivity granted to the taker. “The non-exclusive license is a license that can be granted to more than one company. For example, a patent holder cannot exclusively license multiple generic drug manufacturers. Non-exclusive voluntary licenses allow the development of generic versions of drugs that increase accessibility and accessibility. Further analysis on issues of access to optional licenses, such as . B the impact on middle-income countries and the generic drug industry, have now signed a non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreement. Although it has authorized drug manufacturers in India and Pakistan to expand the supply of an experimental drug used in patients with COVID 19. The literature on voluntary licensing is thin, and most of the literature is fairly recent (after 2012). Last month, Gilead Sciences Inc. signed licensing agreements with five generic drug manufacturers – Cipla Ltd, Jubilant Life Sciences, Hetero Labs Ltd, Mylan and Ferozson Laboratories – non-exclusive licensing agreements. Under non-exclusive agreements, licensees can produce and supply companies in 86 countries, including all sub-Saharan African countries, generic dovirdronron (100 mg) and the combination of dovirine (100 mg) /lamivudine (300 mg)/tenofovisdoxil-disoproxil fumarate (300 mg). Nearly 80% of the world`s HIV-infected people live in these 86 countries. The agreements allow distribution in the following countries: if rights holding companies do not exclusively grant voluntary licenses for patented drugs, they allow other manufacturers to develop generic versions of these drugs.
This helps to promote competition, support supply, improve affordability and improve accessibility. The debate over voluntary licensing is sometimes found in documents that focus on compulsory licensing, which has attracted much more attention in research. Some discuss, for example, how the threat of a compulsory licence can lead to a voluntary licensing agreement (Raju 2017) or whether pharmaceutical companies use voluntary licenses to prevent the use of compulsory licenses (or other entertainment flexibilities) and thus prevent competition in the market. However, many of the titles that discuss both types of licences focus on mandatory licences rather than voluntary licences (Beall and Kuhn 2012). (See our review of the mandatory license.) There is also limited literature describing the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), which works to increase access to HIV, hepatitis C and tuberculosis treatment in LMICs through voluntary licensing and patent pooling. The most descriptive literature dates mainly from 2010, when the initiative was launched (Cox 2012); Children 2010; Bermudez and `t Hoen 2010). More recent analyses analyze the benefits and performance of the MPP (Perry 2016) and the expected savings from voluntary ARV licences by MPP through 2028 (Juneja et al. 2017). (See more of the discussion in our review of “patent pools”) Voluntary licensing refers to the practice of IP licensees who voluntarily license their patents or other intellectual and legal advice, and has been increasingly adopted to promote access to cheaper generic drugs in low- and middle-income countries. Voluntary licences often face licensing, in which a public authority licenses a third party for the IP address. Voluntary licenses can take many forms and can be bilateral (between a single licensee and a taker) or multilateral (between multiple donors and licensees, such as through a patent pool). NEW DELHI: Zydus Cadila announced Friday that it has signed a non-exclusive licensing agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.
for the manufacture and sale of the highly promising Drug Covid-19 Remdesivir.