[Ip-health] Defamation Notice from CPAA to Daniel Vasella

[chan park]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
below is the text of a defamation notice that the Cancer Patients Aid Assoc=
iation sent to Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella in relation to some allegations =
he made in a recent IP-Health watch article.

      22 January 2007


      Dr. Daniel Vasella  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
  Novartis AG
  Schwarzwaldallee 215
  4058 Basel
  Switzerland.

      Dr. Daniel Vasella

      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
  Novartis AG
  Lichstrasse 35
    4002 Basel
  Switzerland.

  Sub: Defamatory statements made by you

  Dear Dr. Vasella,

  Under instructions from my client, Cancer Patients Aid Association, throu=
gh its founder-Chairman, Mr. Y. K. Sapru, I have to state as under:


      My client, Cancer Patients Aid Association, is a charitable organisat=
ion and was registered in India under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 =
in January 1970 and under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1940 in February 19=
70. My client has its registered office at 5, Malhotra House, opposite G.P.=
O., Mumbai =96 400 001. My client has its head office in Mumbai and branch =
offices in Delhi, Bangalore and Pune. It also has a worldwide reputation fo=
r its integrity, hard work and dedication.


      My client states that it was founded with the objective of providing =
holistic and total management of cancer patients, including awareness, prev=
ention, treatment and rehabilitation of cancer patients. Over the past thre=
e decades, through sheer dint of hard work, my client has built up tremendo=
us goodwill for itself as an organisation that offers help for the holistic=
 and total management of cancer.


      My client states that on 10 November 2003, Novartis AG was granted ex=
clusive marketing rights for Gleevec by the Patent Controller of India. Sub=
sequently, Novartis AG instituted infringement actions against Indian compa=
nies, who were manufacturing and selling Gleevec at Rs. 8,000-12,000 per mo=
nth in India. Novartis AG was successful in obtaining injunctions restraini=
ng most Indian companies referred to above from selling Gleevec. As a resul=
t of this, those who wanted to purchase Gleevec had to pay Rs. 120,000/- pe=
r month.


      My client states that therefore on 22 July 2004, it filed a petition =
against Novartis AG, the company of which you are the Chairman and Chief Ex=
ecutive Officer, before the Hon=92ble Supreme Court of India challenging th=
e Exclusive Marketing Rights that was granted to Novartis AG by the Patent =
Controller of India.


      My client states that after the amendment to the Indian Patents Act i=
n 2005, it filed a pre-grant opposition to the grant of a patent to the app=
lication filed by Novartis AG for the drug Gleevec. On 25 January 2006, the=
 Patent Controller rejected Novartis AG=92s application.


      My client states that pursuant to the order of the Patent Controller,=
 Novartis AG has challenged the decision of the Patent Controller and also =
Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Hon=92ble Madras Hi=
gh Court at Chennai.


      My client states that it has recently come to its notice that you hav=
e made certain defamatory statements and insinuations about my client, whic=
h were published on 19 October 2006 in an article titled "Novartis Persists=
 With Challenge to Indian Patent Law Despite Adversity", which is available=
 on the Internet at http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D430. It=
 is indisputable that this article is with reference to the aforementioned =
cases before the Hon=92ble Madras High Court. It is also well-known that my=
 client is the only patient group that is presently a party opposing you in=
 the proceedings before the Hon=92ble Madras High Court. The article states=
: "Vasella said that generic companies are often behind patient groups in I=
ndia, and said he would not be surprised if they gave money to the groups".=
 Therefore, it is clear that your comments are aimed at my client and you h=
ave alleged that my client is backed by generic companies and further that =
it accepts money
 from generic companies. This is false and per se defamatory.


      My client has, through sheer dint of hard work, obtained for itself a=
 lot of credibility and goodwill in society. As stated above, my client has=
 a reputation in India and worldwide for its integrity, hard work and dedic=
ation. It is known as a patients=92 group that is genuinely concerned about=
 holistic management of cancer and assisting poorer patients in procuring d=
rugs. It is due to my client=92s concern for access to medicines for poorer=
 patients that it has been involved in the aforementioned proceedings again=
st you. However, your comments insinuate that my client is an organisation =
that is backed by and being paid money by generic companies to oppose multi=
national pharmaceutical companies. My client states that this is false and =
per se defamatory of my client and its work for cancer patients.


      My client wishes to state that it has not accepted any money from gen=
eric companies for the case relating to Gleevec at any time whatsoever. Mor=
eover, the lawyers acting for my client in the Gleevec case have acted and =
agreed to act for my client pro bono.


      My client states that due to the statement made by you, my client has=
 been portrayed as a sham patient group. This article is accessible over th=
e Internet and can be accessed by thousands interested in the issue of acce=
ss to medicines. My client has received telephone calls from journalists fr=
om India and abroad, oncologists and several close friends and relatives in=
quiring whether the statement made by you imputing that my client has recei=
ved money from generic companies for the Gleevec case. This has put my clie=
nt in an extremely embarrassing position and my client is constrained to ju=
stify the proceedings it has undertaken.


      You are hereby called upon to forthwith retract your statement and is=
sue an unconditional apology over your company website and on Intellectual =
Property Watch, and pay an amount of USD 500,000 to my client as damages, f=
ailing which my client will be forced to initiate legal proceedings, civil =
or criminal, against you, entirely at your risk as to the costs and consequ=
ences, which please note.






---------------------------------
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.