Saturday July 21, 02:41 AM
Novartis set back over patent |
|
Novartis has suffered a setback on its campaign against Indian patent law, which it has termed "unconstitutional". In a judgement delivered by the Indian Patent Appellate Board (IPAB) on Friday, the Board has overruled Novartis' plea that S Chandrasekaran, former controller general of patents, should not be allowed to hear a case against the Swiss drug major.
"Today's judgement was a summary judgement and we will would not know the panel's reasoning until a final written judgement is issued. We disagree with the decision and are considering our options," said a Novartis India spokesperson.
This effectively means that Novartis' demand of appointing a fresh judge in the hearing of the Swiss pharma major's appeal for Glivec, a medicine for cancer, has been disallowed.
The Swiss drug major had earlier objected to the appointment of Chandrasekaran to hear its appeal, arguing that he was responsible for the rejection of Glivec's patent application in the first place. It had evoked a rule, which stated: "A man interested in the matter cannot sit as a judge in that matter." However, the opposition argued that, in case of necessity, this rule may not always be applicable, and quoted examples of such judgements.
Novartis has launched two legal cases in 2006 and 2007 after the Indian patent office refused to grant a patent for Glivec. The company is arguing that disallowing patents for its drug, which is out of patent in other countries, is against the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights guidelines, to which India is a signatory.
The company is challenging not just the Glivec decision, but also a section of the Indian patent law that allows patents to be granted only when there is either substantive improvement of the existing drug formulation, or something "new" in the drug. The Indian Patent Appellate Board was created to provide a forum for appeal to innovators applying for a patent in India, and Chandrasekaran, who recently stepped down as controller general of Patents, was appointed technical member to the board. The Indian patent office ruled against Novartis stating its invention was obvious and did not meet the requirements.
|
