In January 2014, the Innovative Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa (IPASA) was accused of planning and funding an advocacy campaign on behalf of its member companies. The campaign allegedly sought to oppose South Africa’s efforts to introduce intellectual property law reforms that would allow for patents belonging to IPASA’s member companies to be limited, and for cheaper generic versions to be produced.

In a leaked email, Merck and other members of IPASA discussed the strategy.

Media items on the IPASA campaign:

• South African pharma firms accused of planning to delay patent law reform, Sarah Boseley, Guardian, 17 January 2014

• New leaked Merck missive reveals deep drug, medical device company opposition to South African patent reforms, James Love, Knowledge Ecology International, 20 January 2014

• “Genocidal” drug patent plot outrages doctors, rights group, Times Live, 17 January 2014

• Leaked pharmagate emails prove big pharma involvement in scandal, Lotti Truter, TAC, 21 January 2014

• TAC, Section 27 and MSF react to pharmagate, Fix the Patent Laws, January 18 2014

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited IPASA and its member companies to respond:

• IPASA response [PDF]

Members companies' responses & non-responses:

• Abbott [We have invited Abbott to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Abbvie [We have invited Abbvie to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Alcon (part of Novartis) Novartis responded [PDF] on behalf of itself and Alcon
• Allergan did not respond
• Amgen [We have invited Amgen to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• AstraZeneca response [PDF]
• Baxter response [PDF]
• Bayer response [PDF]
• Boehringer-Ingelheim response [PDF]
• Bristol-Myers Squibb referred us to IPASA
• Covidien [We have invited Covidien to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Eli Lilly [We have invited Eli Lilly to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Ferring [We have invited Ferring to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Galderma response [PDF]
• GE Health reffered us to IPASA
• Johnson & Johnson response [PDF]
• Merck (MSD) response [PDF]
• Novartis response [PDF]
• Novo Nordisk response [PDF] indicates it resigned from IPASA following campaign proposal:
• Norgine [We have invited Norgine to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Pfizer referred us to IPASA
• Roche response [PDF] indicates it resigned from IPASA following campaign proposal
• Sanofi-Aventis [We have invited Sanofi-Aventis to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Servier [We have invited Servier to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
• Takeda referred us to IPASA

Novo Nordisk and Roche resigned from IPASA:

• Novo Nordisk leaves alliance over PR campaign, Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, 23 January 2014

• Media release-Roche resigns from IPASA