[Ip-health] Novartis loses fight for cancer drug patent

[Gopal Dabade]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
     <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/> From,
Dr Gopal Dabade,
57, Tejaswinagar,
Dharwad 580 002,
India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/SC_has_limited_power_to_test_quota=
_law_
validity/articleshow/2260969.cms
THE TIMES OF INDIA,

   Novartis loses fight for cancer drug patent
7 Aug 2007, 0036 hrs IST, Rajesh Chandramouli,TNN

   CHENNAI: In a landmark verdict that will safeguard the wallets of
millions of cancer patients across India, the Madras HC on Monday dismissed
a writ petition filed by pharmaceutical giant Novartis, which had challenge=
d
the validity of Indian patent laws.

The Swiss pharma maker, along with its Indian subsidiary, moved the Madras
HC for it to declare part of the Indian Patent Act unconstitutional, vague
and violative of the right to equality, adding that the Act did not comply
with Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement.

Novartis AG and Novartis India had challenged the Indian patent law
applicable to its beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate sold under the
brand name Glivec =97 an anti-cancer drug =97 when Indian authorities decli=
ned
patent for the cancer drug.

The two-judge division Bench, comprising Justice R Balasubramanian and
Justice Prabha Sridevan, said the agreements themselves provided for a
dispute settlement mechanism. The Bench saw no reason to disregard that
forum.

Novartis had sought to declare Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act as
substituted by Patents (Amendment) Act (2005) as being "unconstitutional as
it is vague, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution
(right to equality)."

It also said the Union of India, by the amended section, made out that the
discovery of new form of known substance which does not result in
enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance, is not patentable. The
company had also said that in deciding whether there is enhancement of
efficacy, the patent controller has a chance to apply standards arbitrarily=
.


Addressing Novartis's concern that Indian authorities were likely to misuse
the discretion vested in them, the Bench said, "We have already found that
the amended section has in-built protection enabling each of the patent
applicant, to establish before the patent controller that the discovery had
resulted in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance and the
derivatives are significantly differing in properties with regard to
efficacy. We have found that the amended section does not suffer from the
vice of vagueness, ambiguity and arbitrariness."

If the statutory authority in exercising his power, misdirects himself or
abuses his power in an arbitrary manner then it could be corrected by the
hierarchy of forums provided in the Act itself."

Therefore, the Bench said, the amended section cannot be invalidated solely
on ground that there was a mere possibility of misuse of power.

Counsel for Cancer Patients Aid Association of India R Vaigai said, "This
judgment means cancer patients can have cheaper access to health. Novartis
would have edged out all Indian pharma companies manufacturing the drug
concerned. This was the first time the Indian patent law was challenged in
the courts."


--
http://boycottnovartis.blogspot.com/

Dr Gopal Dabade,
57, Tejaswinagar,
Dharwad 580 002
Tel 0836-2461722
Cell (0)9448862270
www.jagruti.org

--
http://boycottnovartis.blogspot.com/

Dr Gopal Dabade,
57, Tejaswinagar,
Dharwad 580 002
Tel 0836-2461722
Cell (0)9448862270
www.jagruti.org