INDIA FOCUS
Perhaps more serious than that, from a commercial point of view at least, is the precedent this licence sets and its ramifications in terms of attracting investment. If developer companies think that their drugs are likely to be subject to compulsory licences, it may make them less inclined to commercialise those drugs in India, or at least, even keener to limit their accessibility. Paradoxically then, a compulsory licence designed to widen access to drugs may actually limit access to other drugs in the long term. Te case is subject to an appeal.
At the time of writing, another pharmaceutical patent
case is close to resolution, which,
depending on its outcome, could strike another blow to pharmaceutical companies’ confidence in the Indian systems for IP protection. Te Indian Supreme Court is set to decide whether Novartis can have a patent
for Gleevec, its
branded leukaemia drug. Imatinib mesylate, to use the drug’s generic name, is patented as Gleevec in a large number of markets worldwide, and Novartis maintains that it needs the Indian patent
to “advance the practice of medicine”.
Ranged against it are patient associations and Médecins Sans Frontières, to name just two.
CHINA OPPOSITION
“THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAVE MADE CONSIDERABLE STRIDES IN TERMS OF PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND RUNNING INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS ABOUT IP RIGHTS.”
Some have cast the battle as one for the soul of
Indian patent law: if the court goes with
Novartis, they say, many drugs now produced in India as cheap generics will soon have patents covering them, reducing availability in India and in those countries that rely on its thriving generics industry for drugs. If the court goes
against the brand owner, then it may be another blow to innovation in the country and to external investment. Te truth, as ever in these situations, is somewhere in between, but in any event, the court’s decision will be an important one.
But it’s not just in the world of pharmaceuticals that there have been important developments in India this year. Tere seems to have been some progress on the long-running question of how creators of music, literature and other art can ensure they are duly rewarded for their endeavours. Te Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012, which came into force
64 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