[Ip-health] Novartis verdict

[Jean Blaylock]

Indian court rejects Novartis patent challenge
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnDEL103253.html

CHENNAI, India, Aug 6 (Reuters) - An Indian court rejected on Monday a chal=
lenge by Swiss drug firm Novartis <NOVN.VX> to Indian law that denied paten=
ts for minor improvements to known drugs.

The court in the southern city of Chennai rejected the challenge saying it =
had no jurisdiction on whether Indian patent laws complied with intellectua=
l property rules set by the WTO, as Novartis had questioned.

A Novartis spokeswoman said the firm would make a statement soon.

Novartis has said that the Indian patent system stifles innovation. Critics=
 of Novartis say changes to the law would affect the supply of affordable a=
nti-AIDS drugs from India, one of the biggest makers of generic drugs.

Novartis had gone to the Madras High Court in Chennai against a law that bl=
ocks the patenting of minor improvements in known molecules.

The Swiss pharmaceutical firm argues that a tightening of intellectual prop=
erty laws would increase investment for developing more drugs.

India is a key source of cheap generic medicines, and advocacy groups worry=
 that millions of poor people could lose access to key drugs if Novartis su=
cceeds in its challenge.

Indian Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss said in April that the government =
was "very concerned" that the challenge by Novartis could restrict the glob=
al supply of cheap anti-AIDS drugs.

India is home to the world's third largest population living with HIV after=
 South Africa and Nigeria, with an estimated 3.5 million infected people. (=
Additional reporting by Jonathan Allen in New Delhi)

***********************
HC rejects petition by Novartis
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/401200708061222.htm

Chennai, Aug. 6 (PTI): The Madras High Court today dismissed a petition fil=
ed by Swiss pharmaceutical major Novartis AG, challenging the constitutiona=
l validity of the Sect 3 (d) of the patents (amendment) act 2005, under whi=
ch its patent application for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, w=
as rejected.

Dismissing it, a division bench comprising Justice R Balasubramanian and Ju=
stice Prabha Sridevan held that the Court cannot decide whether the Act was=
 in accordance with trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (=
TRIPS) agreement or not.

*********************
HC rejects Novartis' plea on patent
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2007/aug/06nova.htm

August 06, 2007 12:33 IST
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Swiss pharmac=
eutical major Novartis [Get Quote] AG, challenging the constitutional valid=
ity of the section 3 (d) of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, under which i=
ts patent application for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, was r=
ejected.

Dismissing it, a division bench comprising Justice R Balasubramanian and Ju=
stice Prabha Sridevan held that the court cannot decide whether the Act was=
 in accordance with trade related aspects of intellectual property rights a=
greement or not.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board in Chennai had, on July 21 reject=
ed the plea by Novartis to exclude a technical member from a bench constitu=
ted to hear its appeal against rejection of patent right to one of its prod=
uct.

The firm objected to the appointment of technical member S Chandrasekaran o=
n the IPAB Bench on the ground that he had 'disabled himself' to hear its a=
ppeal against rejection of patent right for beta crystalline form of imatin=
ib mesylate, as he had deposed in the counter affidavit filed in the Madras=
 High Court.

"He has disabled himself from hearing the appeal in the capacity of a techn=
ical member in the light of deposition made by him, thereby taking a stand =
in the matter and as such he would not be free from bias," the firm contend=
ed.

Rejecting the objection, the IPAB Bench comprising board chairman M H S Ans=
ari and S Chandrasekaran had stated the submissions made by Chandrasekaran =
have no relevance as they were based on his official capacity as a statutor=
y authority before assuming the post of adjudicator and hence must be esche=
wed from consideration on the facts of the instant matter.

Originally, the company filed an appeal and a petition in the Madras High C=
ourt. The appeal challenged rejection of its patent application for beta cr=
ystalline form of imatinib mesylate, sold under the brandname Gleevee/Glive=
c.

The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of th=
e Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, on the basis of which its application for p=
atent was rejected. Since there was no IPAB Bench, which is the competent a=
uthority to hear the appeals against rejection of patent, the company moved=
 the appeal in the High Court.

During the course of hearing, the Centre notified the constitution of IPAB =
Bench. Following this, a Division Bench comprising Justice R Balasubramania=
n and Justice Prabha Sridevan, which was hearing the matter, referred the a=
ppeal by the company, against rejection of patent, to the board.

However, the high court had reserved orders on the petition challenging the=
 validity of the provisions of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.




--------------------------------------
Jean Blaylock
Trade Campaign Officer
- Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance
- Alliance oecum=E9nique agir ensemble
- Alianza Ecum=E9nica de Acci=F3n Mundial
- Globales =D6kumenisches Aktionsb=FCndnis
+41 (0)22 791 6080
jblaylock@e-alliance.ch
------------www.e-alliance.ch---------

Sign the petition to tell Abbott Labs
not to deny medicines to the Thai people
--  www.e-alliance.ch/accessmeds_actions.jsp  --




________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at e-alliance.ch