[Ip-health] Novartis Press Release on its defeat in India Lies Again

[B.Baker@neu.edu]

Once again, Novartis goes beyond spin and essentially lies in its August 6,
2007, press release about the 2007 WTO Trade Policy Review of India.
Novartis would have the world believe that the WTO has backed its legally
frivolous but pragmatically catastrophic challenge to section 3(d) of the
India Patent Act that eliminates patent rights for new forms of existing
chemical entities unless they demonstrated significant therapeutic
advantage.  It suggests so in its following quote:

"WTO recently urged India to improve its intellectual property system
Unlike other WTO member countries, India has a unique provision in its
patent law, Section 3(d). This provision excludes important developments in
the form of incremental innovation, and ignores the importance of side
effects, ultimately denying patients in India new and better medicines.

During the India Trade Policy Review in late May 2007, the WTO urged India
to strengthen its intellectual property rights system. It commended India
for taking steps to align its national standards with international
requirements but added that "effective implementation of IPR-related
legislation would be in the interest of India itself.""

To the contrary, even the notoriously pro-IPR World Trade Organization, did
not say anything whatsoever that would challenge Section 3(d).  In the
Summary Observations, the following statement was made:

"19.  The main changes in protection of intellectual property rights
include the passage of new legislation on patents, aimed at bringing Indian
legislation in line with the TRIPS Agreement, and the establishment of a
new Geographical Indications Registry in 2003.  Steps are also continuing
to improve enforcement of intellectual property rights including through
increased seizures of infringing materials, and fines, although apart from
copyright infringement, there are few data available on enforcement."


In the three-page discussion of patents, page 94-96, there is no discussion
even questioning the legality or TRIPS-compliance of the India Patent Act
generally or of section 3(d) in particular.

Admittedly, some "Members" - but not the WTO itself - expressed a desire
that India further strengthen its intellectual property regimes - and we
can be sure that the U.S., Switzerland, and Japan led the charge of this
pro-Pharma contingent based on their questions to India (note minutes of
the meeting not yet available) - but even this sentiment was not unanimous
as reflected in the Chairman's Concluding Remarks:

"Strengthening of the IPR regime was also urged. Some Members expressed
their appreciation of the new Patent Act introduced in 2005, and considered
that effective implementation of IPR related legislation would be in the
interest of India itself."

But, like it has done in the past, Novartis resorts to lies to try to
defend its indefensible lawsuit and its right to earn monopoly profits even
in the poorest countries in the world.

Professor Brook K. Baker, Health GAP
Northeastern U. School of Law
Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy
400 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02115
617-373-3217 (office)
617-259-0760 (cell)