Novartis loses court battle; Indian firms can produce generic cancer drug
Updated: Apr 01, 2013 05:22:46pm
New Delhi, Apr 1 (KNN) In a landmark judgement giving a boost to the Indian generic pharmaceutical industry, the Supreme Court today rejected Swiss giant Novartis AG plea for getting its blood cancer treatment drug Glivec patented in India.
Bringing curtains on the seven-year-old legal war, the apex court ruled ''imatinib mesylate'' used in Glivec is a known substance and Novartis cannot seek patent over the drug for using this chemical. Simply put, it said there was no genuine invention in the drug sought to be patented by Novartis.
The judgement has also brought in relief to cancer patients not only in India but also in other developing countries which import affordable versions of generic drugs from the Indian firms.
The cost of one-month treatment is about Rs 1.20 lakh while the same can be made available by the manufacturers of Indian generic versions at Rs 8,000 a month.
Domestic firms – Ranbaxy and Cipla had been opposing Novarits in its battle to win a patent war in the country. The judgement paves way for Indian firms to manufacture these drugs.
"Patents will now be granted only for genuine inventions and not on repetitive inventions. The Supreme Court said there was no new invention in the Novartis'' drug," Pratibha Singh , lawyer for these companies told reporters after the judgement.
In his reaction, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said, “It is a historic judgement which reaffirms the position of the Indian law and in particular, provisions of Section 3d, which mandates the need for a substantive innovation while deciding on a case for grant of a fresh patent.
“Indian Patent Law is fully in conformity with our international obligations under the TRIPS agreement,” he added.
Novartis had approached the Supreme Court in 2009 against the order of Chennai-based Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had turned down its claim.
Analysts feel that multi-national firms may now consider the option of licensing agreements with the local firms to offer cheap versions of the branded drugs.
Novartis showed its displeasure over the ruling saying the Indian law offers “limited intellectual property protection”. (KNN)
Bringing curtains on the seven-year-old legal war, the apex court ruled ''imatinib mesylate'' used in Glivec is a known substance and Novartis cannot seek patent over the drug for using this chemical. Simply put, it said there was no genuine invention in the drug sought to be patented by Novartis.
The judgement has also brought in relief to cancer patients not only in India but also in other developing countries which import affordable versions of generic drugs from the Indian firms.
The cost of one-month treatment is about Rs 1.20 lakh while the same can be made available by the manufacturers of Indian generic versions at Rs 8,000 a month.
Domestic firms – Ranbaxy and Cipla had been opposing Novarits in its battle to win a patent war in the country. The judgement paves way for Indian firms to manufacture these drugs.
"Patents will now be granted only for genuine inventions and not on repetitive inventions. The Supreme Court said there was no new invention in the Novartis'' drug," Pratibha Singh , lawyer for these companies told reporters after the judgement.
In his reaction, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said, “It is a historic judgement which reaffirms the position of the Indian law and in particular, provisions of Section 3d, which mandates the need for a substantive innovation while deciding on a case for grant of a fresh patent.
“Indian Patent Law is fully in conformity with our international obligations under the TRIPS agreement,” he added.
Novartis had approached the Supreme Court in 2009 against the order of Chennai-based Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had turned down its claim.
Analysts feel that multi-national firms may now consider the option of licensing agreements with the local firms to offer cheap versions of the branded drugs.
Novartis showed its displeasure over the ruling saying the Indian law offers “limited intellectual property protection”. (KNN)
Loading...
