[Ip-health] Joint Statement by CPAA, MSF, DNP+ and Lawyers Collective on Novartis Judgment

[chan park]

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

  Mumbai/New Delhi, 7 August 2007 =96 The landmark decision by the Madras H=
igh Court upholding India=92s Patents Act in the face of the challenge by S=
wiss pharmaceutical company Novartis is a major victory for patients=92 acc=
ess to affordable medicines in developing countries, stated the Cancer Pati=
ents Aid Association (CPAA), the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, the Delh=
i Network for Positive People (DNP+) and international medical humanitarian=
 organisation M=E9decins Sans Fronti=E8res (MSF).


  Novartis took the Indian government and cancer patients to court over cri=
tical public health safeguards included in the 2005 amendments to India=92s=
 Patent law. Novartis claimed that India=92s Patents Act did not comply wit=
h the TRIPS Agreement and was in violation of the Indian Constitution. All =
of Novartis=92 claims were rejected by the High Court.


  =93We fought for patients' rights in this litigation, and we are greatly =
relieved that the Court has ruled in our favour, and recognised that patien=
ts need protecting more than patents,=94 said Y. K. Sapru, founder and Chai=
rman of the CPAA. =93The issue is not merely of providing affordable drugs =
to patients in India, but also to patients in other countries, as India is =
the source of generic drugs to over hundred countries. This landmark victor=
y will help avoid many deaths from life-threatening diseases in India and o=
ther countries.=94


  In 2005 India amended its patent law to comply with WTO rules, but design=
ed its law with safeguards so that patents can only be granted for real inn=
ovations. This means that companies seeking a patent for modifications to a=
 molecule already invented, in order to extend their monopolies on existing=
 drugs, would be unsuccessful in India. The particular amendment in questio=
n =96 Section 3(d) ­=96 was enacted to this end and it was this aspect =
of the law that Novartis was seeking to have removed. A ruling in favour of=
 the company would have drastically restricted the production of affordable=
 medicines in India that are crucial for the treatment of diseases througho=
ut the developing world.


  =93Novartis went to the Madras High Court claiming that India's Patents A=
ct did not meet rules set down by the World Trade Organization and was in v=
iolation of the equality provision of the Indian constitution,=94 said Anan=
d Grover, Director of the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, who argued the =
case for the CPAA.  =93The Madras High Court ruled that it had no jurisdict=
ion to examine if there was any violation of the WTO rules and it was for t=
he WTO dispute settlement mechanism to determine this. The Court also uphel=
d the constitutional validity of section 3(d). The Court clearly recognized=
 that Section 3(d) was enacted by the Indian Parliament to provide easy acc=
ess to life saving drugs and to meet its constitutional obligation to provi=
de good healthcare to its citizens,=94 he added.


  Developing countries and international agencies like UNICEF and the Clint=
on Foundation rely heavily on importing affordable drugs from India, and 84=
% of the antiretrovirals that MSF prescribes to its patients worldwide come=
 from Indian generic companies. The judgment means that India will continue=
 to be the =91pharmacy of the developing world.=92


  =93This decision means that safe, effective and affordable generic medici=
nes will continue to be produced in India. The majority of drug patent appl=
ications before the Indian patent office are for new forms or new uses of a=
lready known drugs. Section 3(d) will ensure that frivolous patents will no=
t be granted at the cost of public health,=94 added Chan Park of the Lawyer=
s Collective HIV/AIDS Unit.


  =93This is really exciting news for activists in India and across the wor=
ld who rallied together to support India=92s public health safeguards. The =
decision gives me and many others fresh hope for life,=94 said Loon Gangte =
of DNP+. =93Many of us need newer HIV drugs which are still far too expensi=
ve. I now expect generic competition to change that and bring prices down. =
The case has also shown us that the Government is clearly taking patients l=
ives seriously by its defense of the public health safeguards in the Indian=
 Patents Act.=94


  =93The judgment means patients around the developing world can continue t=
o look to India for life saving medication,=94 said Leena Menghaney, MSF Ca=
mpaign for Access to Essential Medicines. =93The statement by Novartis that=
 the Court=92s ruling will hinder innovation is false. Despite the fact tha=
t patent protection has increased world-wide in the last two decades, pharm=
aceutical innovation has actually declined. We encourage Novartis to contri=
bute to international discussions on alternative incentive systems for heal=
th needs driven R&D that ensure both the availability and the affordability=
 of new drugs and vaccines.=94


  Nearly half a million people worldwide voiced their concern about the imp=
act Novartis=92s case could have on access to medicines in the developing w=
orld.  Among them were the Indian Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, Archbi=
shop Desmond Tutu, Global Fund Director Michel Kazatchkine, members from th=
e European Parliament and the US Congress, former Swiss President Ruth Drei=
fuss, former UN Special Envoy for AIDS in Africa Stephen Lewis, German Deve=
lopment Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Norwegian Development Minister =
Erik Solheim, as well as authors John Le Carr=E9 and Naomi Klein.  An MSF p=
etition urging Novartis to drop the case gathered over 420,000 signatures.


  Contact: Lawyers Collective: Anand Grover:  +91.9820184788; Chan Park: + =
91.9899452377
  DNP+: Loon Gangte +91.9871029514       CPAA: Mr YK Sapru + 91.9821061571
  MSF: Leena Menghaney:  +91.9811365412; Anjolie Singh: + 91.9871875574