|
On August 6, 2007, the Madras High Court rejected the challenge by Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis of a provision in the Indian Patents Act that denies patents for minor changes in known drugs. The case has been eagerly followed by both pharma companies and health activists because of the implications it could have for patent laws and for affordable drugs.
Novartis had earlier challenged the rejection of a patent for the anti-cancer drug Glivec. The Indian government had rejected the application saying it was insufficiently innovative, a stand it could take under Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act.
Novartis then questioned this provision in the Patents Act itself under international intellectual property rules. The court, however, dismissed the petition saying that it had no jurisdiction on whether Indian patent laws complied with intellectual property rules set by the World Trade Organisation.
Health NGOs and activists have been critical of Novartis' questioning of India's patent law, which allows the country to make affordable drugs, particularly anti-retrovirals. A global campaign by civil society has seen nearly half-a-million people around the world campaigning against Novartis to drop its case (see earlier report ‘Quarter-of-a-million people sign petition against Novartis').
Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign said: “This ruling is a vindication for India and a victory for campaigners. Developing countries should not be bullied by pharmaceutical companies and forced into having to defend themselves in court for correctly using the safeguards available to them to protect public health.”
“This (the judgment) is a huge relief for millions of patients and doctors in developing countries who depend on affordable medicines from India,” said the director of Medicins sans Frontieres, which has mounted a campaign for cheaper drugs.
Novartis prices Glivec at Rs 120,000 (US$ 2,719) per dose, while Indian companies sell it at Rs 8,000 (US$ 181).
Novartis India's managing director said that the court decision would have “long-term negative consequences for research and development and better medicines for patients in India and abroad”. However, he said, the company was unlikely to appeal the decision in India's Supreme Court.
August 7, 2007
|
