Guest Post: New anti-evergreening patent law in Ukraine

In this guest post, patent expert Dr Olga Gurgula reports on updates from Ukraine as well as highlighting important next steps for the Ukrainian Patent Office. Olga is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London and Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford. Here's what she says:

The topic of patent evergreening has been in the news for quite some time. For Ukraine, it has been an especially painful issue, where the majority of people suffering from illness pay for medicines prescribed by their doctors from their own pockets, and the prescriptions are typically for patent-protected brand-name drugs. Not surprisingly, therefore, that the statistics are far from positive - the majority of the Ukrainian population is not able to buy expensive medicines, including those required for life-threatening diseases like HIV, hepatitis C and cancer. The WHO, in its 2019 report, noted that ‘spending on medicines was reported as being the main driver of financial hardship for Ukrainian households’.  Therefore, the need for more affordable medicines to be made available for the Ukrainian population has been one of the key issues in recent years. To achieve this, a number of reforms have been put in place, including amendments to the Patent Act 1994.

Syoma pondering his goal to
improve access to affordable medicines 
Image: Olga Gurgula

Prior to these amendments, patent law in Ukraine was patentee friendly, providing broad opportunities for patenting a medicine by covering its active ingredient, process of manufacture and other various aspects, such as salts, polymorphs, formulations, dosages, etc. As a result, pharmaceutical companies in Ukraine were applying for patents on numerous modifications to their existing products, many of these did not bring any benefits to the patient. This, in turn, allowed the companies to strengthen the patent protection of their products, thus maintaining market exclusivity and keeping prices high. 

Such practices have raised fierce opposition from Ukrainian activists and patient groups who have been eagerly advocating for changes to the patentability standards. For more than a decade now, they have been fighting against the evergreening of patent protection on medicines and urging the Ukrainian government to take measures which would restrict such practices and enable faster generic competition to provide access to more affordable medicines. Several draft laws were put forward in the Ukrainian parliament; however, they have not received much support. That is until recently. These drafts were met by significant resistance and pressure from various pharmaceutical lobby groups, as well as the EU and US. One of the approaches suggested in these draft laws was to follow the example of Section 3d of the Indian Patent Act 1970. The latter provides that a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance is not considered to be an invention. Such an approach, however, was rejected and a compromise was reached somewhere in the middle. 

The amendments to the Ukrainian Patent Act 1993 came into force on 21 July 2020 and are considered to be a significant victory that will directly benefit Ukrainian patients. Out of a number of changes that have been implemented in this Act, the anti-evergreening provision deserves specific attention. While, as was noted, the draft law contained a provision inspired by Section 3d of the Indian Patent Act, the amended Patent Act shifted the decision on the patentability of such inventions to the stage of the inventive step analysis. Specifically, in addition to the standard provision in Section 7(7), that the invention will be considered to have an inventive step if it is not obvious to the person skilled in the art, this Section was supplemented with the clarification that: 

new forms of a known medicine, including salts, esters, ethers, compositions, combinations and other derivatives, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, can be considered as matters that obviously follow from the state of the art if they do not differ significantly with regard to efficacy

While these changes to the patent law have the potential of improving access to medicines in Ukraine, it is now the task of the Ukrainian Patent Office to apply this provision. Therefore, it is important that the Patent Office bears in mind the aim of this provision when interpreting and applying it to specific cases. In particular, the addition of this provision to the Patent Act was a strategic policy decision of Ukraine. Its goal is to improve access to affordable medicines by preventing the patenting of trivial modifications of existing medicines that enable pharmaceutical companies to maintain their market monopoly while bringing little or no benefits to the patient. To help the Patent Office in establishing a uniform and predictable practice, it may be useful to develop specific guidance on how such pharmaceutical inventions should be assessed.

Guest Post: New anti-evergreening patent law in Ukraine Guest Post: New anti-evergreening patent law in Ukraine Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher on Thursday, October 08, 2020 Rating: 5


  1. Patent evergreening is a hot topic everywhere, but I'm not sure whether everyone involved has understood the patent system.

    If companies patent new forms of a known drug then generally because the known form is going off patent. That's what is called evergreening. But in fact everyone is free to produce and market the old form then, so this is not a bar to cheap medicines.

    If the new form doesn't bring any advantage, why don't just market the old one? No-one is obliged to use the new one.

    If the new form does have advantages, then maybe there is an invention behind that should be rewarded with a patent?

    Also improvements of known forms require research investments. Who is going to spend money on such research if he will be immediately copied by competitors who did not have to bear these costs?

    Medicines for treating the diseases mentioned in the above article are not expensive because of evergreening patents, but because the basic patent is still in force. If this is considered a problem it has to be addressed in a different way.

    1. I do partialy agree to your theoretical approach, which would of course give actually a longer advantage to the one company finding a better form (with advantageous properities) and leaving others to use the other one(s). But, unfortunately, in reality, such secondary patents are for example granted despite such form was already known (e.g. from the compound patent) and this then has to be put forward by the opponents trying to invalidate such secondary patents, where the one form that is subeject to evergreening is for example the only viable option for a pharmaceutical composition. This then, unfortunately poses bariers for chepear and affordable medicines. The Indian Sec.3d and the aforementoned new provision in the Ukrainian law just gives a bit higher pressure on the patentee to prove such advantageous properities, which have to be linked (usually) with an efficacy, which makes sense and would then make such a form a real invention.

  2. Well, if patents are granted on subject matter which was already known, then this is rather a problem of bad examination process in a patent office rather than a problem of bad legislation...

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.