[Ip-health] Indian Express: Plagiarised report figures in Novartis hearing

[Achal Prabhala]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/23991.html

Plagiarised report figures in Novartis hearing


Jaya Menon

Posted online: Friday, February 23, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

Chennai, February 22
The controversy over the R A Mashelkar-headed committee on patent law admit=
ting to plagiarism figured prominently in the Madras High Court today, wher=
e a legal battle is on for a patent for an anti-cancer drug manufactured by=
 Swiss pharmaceutical major Novartis AG.

The Union Government, represented by Additional Solicitor-General V T Gopal=
an, defended Sec 3(d) of the Amended Indian Patents Act 2005, arguing befor=
e a Division Bench of the Madras High Court that it neither violated TRIPS =
(Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights of the =
World Trade Organization of which India is a signatory) nor provides =93an =
unguided power to patent controllers to reject applications on the ground t=
hat they are not inventions.=94

Referring to Mashelkar=92s admission that the report of the committee heade=
d by him had lifted some lines =93ad verbatim=94 from =93other sources=94, =
advocates V Lakhsmi Kumaran and Arvind P Datar representing pharmaceutical =
companies Ranbaxy and Cipla Pharmaceuticals respectively, took the stand th=
at the report =93can=92t be used to argue whether Section 3 (d) of the Amen=
ded Patents Act 2005 is TRIPS-compliant or not=94.

They contended that a statutory provision could not be struck down on the g=
round that it went against an international treaty.

When arguments in the case began in Madras High Court, senior counsel Soli =
Sorabjee and Shanthi Bhu-

shan argued on behalf of Novartis that the impugned provision provided =93u=
ncanalised and arbitrary power=94 to patent controllers to reject patent ap=
plications even if they were new or inventive. =93 ,=94 they said.

Sec 3(d) says that =93the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance=
 which does not enhance its known efficacy will not be taken as an inventio=
n=94.

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs said the compound did not d=
iffer significantly in properties with regard to efficacy as compared to ot=
her similar compounds. Novartis=92 contention is that the provision violate=
d the articles of TRIPS.

--