NEWS Indian Supreme Court to hear Novartis dispute over generic drugs
India’s highest court is set to hear a long-running dispute between Novartis and the country’s government, which has prevented the pharma company from patenting its cancer drug Gleevec.
Te case, originally set to start on August 25, will begin on September 11 at the Indian Supreme Court. It strikes to the heart of the debate over patenting drugs and allowing generic companies to sell them more cheaply. Generic companies are allowed to sell the drug in India.
Te Swiss-owned company owns patents for Gleevec in around 40 countries. It applied for a patent in India but the national patent office rejected its application in 2006, arguing that the medicine was merely a new form of an old medicine. Tis meant it could not be patented under Indian law, as laid down in Section 3(d) in India’s Patents Act.
At the time, the drug was sold at $2,600 per patient per month in other countries but generic companies sold the drug in India for less than $200 per patient per month.
Novartis subsequently asked a court to declare Section 3(d) unconstitutional. But in 2007, the
Madras High Court rejected this challenge. Novartis started a fresh challenge in 2009 at the Indian Supreme Court, where the case will now be heard.
Groups campaigning against Novartis have said Gleevec should be available cheaply to cancer patients in India who cannot afford to pay. “If Novartis won the case, patents would be granted in India as broadly as they are in wealthy countries and on new formulations of known medicines already in use. India would no longer be able to supply much
of
the developing world with quality affordable
medicine,” said Médecins Sans Frontières in a statement on its website.
But Novartis said in a statement that the legal move is “about protecting intellectual property to advance the practice of medicine, not about changing access to medicines”. It argues that the case is about gaining clarity on the application of patent law in India, which “is important to the economic future of the country”.
14 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128