[Ip-health] Patent Oppositions Filed on 3 Essential Drugs

[chan park]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
  dear moderator, please post the below message on the ip-health listserve

  thanks

  -----------------------------

  Dear Friends,

  In the continuing struggle to ensure that patents are not granted at the =
cost of human lives, we are pleased to inform you that health groups in Ind=
ia have recently filed three more pre-grant patent oppositions against esse=
ntial medicines.  Copies of these oppositions can be obtained at the Lawyer=
s Collective website at http://lawyerscollective.org/lc_hivaids/amtc/folder=
.2005-12-20.2101894352

  Today, in the Patent Office in Chennai, the Indian Network for People Liv=
ing with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and the Karnataka Network of People Living with HI=
V/AIDS filed an opposition against Novartis's patent application for ATAZAN=
AVIR (subsequently licensed to Bristol Meyers Squibb), a critical second-li=
ne protease inhibitor.  The opposition is based on four grounds: (1) that a=
 prior patent discloses the compound that is claimed in the ATAZANAVIR appl=
ication, and thus is not "new" under Indian law; (2) that the application i=
s not "inventive" and is not patentable under Indian law; (3) that the appl=
ication describes a "new form of a known substance" and is thus not an "inv=
ention" under Indian law; and (4) that the applicant has failed to provide =
the Patent Office with certain information that it was required to submit. =
 If successful, this opposition will pave the way for generic companies to =
produce affordable versions of this critical second-line drug.

  And last week, INP+ and the Uttar Pradesh Network for People Living with =
HIV/AIDS filed an oppositon against Glaxo's patent application for AMPRENAV=
IR in the Delhi Patent Office.  AMPRENAVIR is the base molecule for the imp=
ortant protease inhibitor FOSAMPRENAVIR, and thus the grant of patent for A=
MPRENAVIR could allow Glaxo to prevent other manufacturer from producing ge=
neric versions of FOSAMPRENAVIR.  This opposition is also based on the grou=
nd that the application is not "new," that it is not "inventive," and that =
it is just a "new form of a known substance."  Additionally, the oppostion =
is based on the grounds that the application is merely a "new use of a know=
n substance," and thus not patentable under Indian law, and that it is, at =
most, a "mere admixture" and is thus unpatentable.

  Finally, also last week, INP+ and the Tamil Nadu Network People Living wi=
th HIV/AIDS filed an opposition against VALGANCICLOVIR, a critical treatmen=
t for CMV retinitis, a common AIDS-related opportunistic infection that can=
 cause blindness.  This oppostion is based on the procedural grounds that t=
he application concerns an invention from before 1995 and is thus unpatenta=
ble in India.  India incurred its obligations under TRIPS as of 1 January 1=
995, and thus any inventions that pre-date 1995 are considered "public doma=
in" in India and thus are not patentable.

  We are hopeful that the PLHA groups will prevail in their struggle for ac=
cess to the medicines that sustain their health.  We are also hopeful that =
other health-related groups will take this information and broaden the figh=
t against patents on essential drugs by opposing patents on their own.  Sho=
uld you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact=
 us at the information below.

  In solidarity,

  Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit

  For more information please contact:

  Chan Park
  aidslaw2@lawyerscollective.org

    Anand Grover

  aidslaw@lawyerscollective.org

  Prathiba Siva
  aidslaw@lawyerscollective.org

  Regards,

  Chan


  Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit
#4A, MAH Road, Tasker Town,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 51

Telephone: (080) 4123 9130/31/41125273
Fax: (080) 4123 9289



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.