[Ip-health] Proceedings on Novartis’ appeal before IPAB stayed

[Prabhu Ram]

Proceedings on Novartis' appeal before IPAB stayed

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: All further proceedings on the statutory appeals filed by
Novartis, challenging the rejection of its patent application, pending
before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) were stayed by
the Madras High Court on Thursday.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice P.
Jyothimani granted the interim relief on a writ petition filed by
Novartis AG stating that the IPAB had erred in dismissing its plea to
exclude its Technical Member S. Chandrasekaran from hearing its
statutory appeals.

Hearing on September 10

The Bench has posted the matter to September 10 for further proceedings.

Novartis' application to patent the beta crystalline form of imatinib
mesylate was rejected by Chennai Patent Office in January 25, 2006.

In April 2007, the High Court transferred the statutory appeals to the
IPAB after a Technical Member was appointed and the Board became
functional.

When the IPAB took up the appeal for hearing, Novartis sought to
exclude Mr. Chandrasekaran from the Bench, on the ground that he had
filed a counter-affidavit in support of the Union of India and the
Controller-General of Patents and Designs and hence he would be biased
against Novartis. In July 2007, the IPAB rejected the objections. The
present writ petition challenges the rejection of its objections.

Describing the timing of appointment of Mr. Chandrasekaran as
significant, the company said the IPAB had erred in rejecting its plea
to request the Centre to appoint another member in lieu of Mr.
Chandrasekaran.

The January 25, 2006 order rejecting Novartis' patent application was
passed by the Assistant Controller under the aegis of the erstwhile
Controller-General Chandrasekaran, the petitioner said, adding that he
had deposed an affidavit against Novartis in High Court before
becoming a Technical Member of the IPAB.

It said he would "suffer from a prejudiced mindset and would not be
able to apply his mind in an independent fashion."

It said: "It is well nigh impossible to expect that a person with an
indelible mindset will be able to serve as an unbiased Technical
Member (Patent)."

It sought to quash the IPAB order and consequently direct the Board to
remove Mr. Chandrasekaran from acting as a Technical Member (Patent)
to hear the appeal and direct the Centre to appoint another Technical
Member in his place.


Source: http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories/2007081061841800.htm