[Ip-health] ET: Novartis Not to Plead Novartis Case (misleading headline)

[chan park]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

  http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Novartis_not_to=
_plead_Glivec_case/articleshow/2249607.cms

  MUMBAI: Triggering a fresh legal wrangle, Swiss drug major Novartis on We=
dnesday filed a writ petition with the Madras High Court contesting the Int=
ellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)=92s decision to let former Patent=
 Controller General S Chandrasekaran hear its appeal for Glivec.

=93We expect the opportunity to explain our case clearly to an objective bo=
ard. Because the current technical member of the appellate board was respon=
sible for the original rejection of the Glivec patent, and was a party in t=
he patent appeal in the high court, where he filed an affidavit on behalf o=
f the offices of the Controller General of Patents, we believe he cannot ac=
t as an impartial member of the Appellate Board,=94 a Novartis=92 spokesper=
son said on Wednesday.
Novartis had filed a petition with the IPAB last month insisting that the n=
ewly appointed technical member to the board had refused its patent for ant=
i-cancer drug Glivec in the first place, and should therefore not hear its =
appeal. However, the IPAB dismissed Novartis=92 objection.

=93I honestly do not understand the stand of the IPAB,=94 said Novartis=92 =
vice chairman and MD Ranjit Shahani. =93Novartis is not against the IPAB. O=
n the contrary we believe that its creation is a great step towards setting=
 up a strong IP regime in the country,=94 he said.

In a separate case, the Delhi High Court recently held that Mr Chandrasekar=
an could not hear Magotteaux International=92s appeal to the patent office =
decision to reject one of its patent=92s application.

Following the rejection of its patent application by the Delhi Patent offic=
e, Magotteaux International =97 a Belgian company =97 had filed an appeal w=
ith the Delhi High Court. The case was then transferred to the IPAB. Howeve=
r, like Novartis, Magotteaux filed a petition with the high court, insistin=
g that Mr Chandrasekaran should not hear its appeal as it was under his ten=
ure that its patent application was rejected in the first place.

=93It is for the same reasons that Novartis is today opposed to Mr Chandras=
ekaran hearing our appeal on Glivec,=94 said Mr Shahani. Novartis hopes tha=
t the Madras High Court will, like the Delhi High Court did for Magotteaux,=
 rule in its favour.

The Madras Patent Office rejected Novartis=92 patent application for Glivec=
 in January 2006, arguing that the Basel-based drug maker=92s innovation wa=
s obvious and did not meet the requirements of section 3(d) =97a legal clau=
se specific to the Indian patent law, which stipulates that modifications o=
f already-known medicines cannot be patented unless they make the drug sign=
ificantly more effective.

While Glivec is a new medicine, patented in over 40 countries around the wo=
rld, Novartis is seeking patent protection in India for a crystalline form =
of the drug, as the original molecule was invented prior to 1995, and is th=
erefore not eligible for a patent in India.

Novartis has last year filed a petition with the Madras High Court challeng=
ing the constitutionality of Section 3(d).