Category Archives: Patent Litigation

Health organisations urge Novartis to drop patent case

Posted on by
Reply

Business line Wednesday, Jan 31, 2007

New Delhi Jan. 30 Health organisations from across the world have came forth in support of the Indian Government in its ongoing legal case against drug manufacturer Novartis and urged the Swiss company to drop its patent case in India.
Novartis had filed an application for patenting its cancer drug Gleevac, used for treating Leukaemia, which the Indian Government had turned down. The company filed a case with the Madras High Court challenging the decision.
“The treatment with Gleevac costs Rs 1,20,000 per month for a patient as compared to Rs 8,000 per month with its generics. If Novartis wins the legal battle, it will set a wrong precedent for other patent cases and have widespread implication on provision of other life saving drugs,” said Dr Amit Sengupta of People’s Health Movement, a health organisation working for the poor people. Continue reading →

IPAB hears Novartis objection against S Chandrasekaran

Posted on by
Reply

Economic times, July3, 2007
The Indian Patent Appellate Board (IPAB) on Monday heard a case that will decide whether S Chandrasekaran, former controller general of patents, will be allowed to hear Novartis appeal for Glivec, or if a new person will be appointed for the case.

The Swiss drug major had earlier objected to the appointment of Mr Chandrasekaran to hear its appeal, arguing that he was responsible for the rejection of Glivecs patent application in the first place. Novartis has launched two suits after India refused to grant a patent for Glivec, an anti-cancer medicine. Novartis is challenging not just the Glivec decision, but also a section of the Indian patent law designed to promote cheaper generic medicines for poor patients who cannot afford patented medicines. Continue reading →

Cancer drug patent case takes new turn

Posted on by
Reply

Times of India, June 19, 2007
The much-awaited appeal proceedings in a cancer drug patent case could not begin on Monday as Swiss major Novartis AG, turning the tables on the government, raised a conflict-of-interest objection to the composition of the two-member bench of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

How can an officer who swore an affidavit on behalf of the government turn into a judge in the same matter?

Novartis objected to S Chadrasekharan, former controller general of the Indian Patent Office, being the technical member on the bench that will decide its appeal against a decision taken last year by his then subordinate, rejecting its patent application for cancer drug Glivec. Continue reading →

Novartis may suffer jolt in Glivec case

Posted on by
Reply

Financial Express, June 20, 2007
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which has been formed to give a verdict on various patent cases across the country, may reject Novartis objection on the presence of S Chandrasekharan, the former patent controller, on IPAB.

Novartis had objected to Chandrasekharans presence on the board saying he was responsible for Glivec being denied product patent in 2006, when he was the controller general of patents.Experts close to the development say that IPAB will consider the fact that Chandrasekharan was actually not responsible for the decision on Glivecs patent application. IPAB will consider Novartis objection on July 2. Continue reading →

Patent act of India faces challenge

Posted on by
Reply

In a rather predictable move, Novartis, the swiss multinational company which holds patent for a many medicines used for treating camcer, leukemia, malaria and many others including the the anti retro-viral AIDS medicine has challenged the contentious Section 3(d) introduced via the 2005 Amendments to India’s Patent Act.

This unique section which has been specifically been introduced into the Indian Patent Acrt provides a part that the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance is not patentable. While this clause has no precedent in any other patent laws in the world it was specifically drafted so as not to misuse the rediscovery of an already known item and patent it. The section then states (via an explanation to the section) that salts, esters, esthers, polymorphs, metabolites etc shall be considered as the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy. Continue reading →