Novartis case opens in SC

Company ready to promise assistance scheme for patients will continue even after litigation

Swiss pharmaceuticals major on Tuesday began its argument in the Supreme Court, asserting its right to a patent for cancer drug Glivec, with the government, four Indian firms and the Cancer Patients Aid Association on the opposite side.

has appealed against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to refuse a patent for the medicine.

counsel stated the company had faced a lot of criticism on the fact that a month’s supply of the drug was priced at Rs 1.20 lakh and, therefore, it wasn’t affordable for many people in the country. He, however, said there was a patients’ assistance scheme through which 80 per cent of blood cancer victims were given free medicine. He also said the company wasn’t recording huge profits, as alleged.

WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE COURT
Drug patent applications that were rejected based 
on section 3 (d) and can gain if SC order goes in favour of Novartis
Company Drugs for HIV
GSK Zidovudine in combination with lamivudine
Roche Valganciclovir
Boehringer Ingelheim Nevaripine syrup
GSK Abacavir

The bench, headed by Aftab Alam, asked when the company was giving the drug free to some patients, why didn’t it cut its price to ensure it was available to a greater number of patients. The judges said the high prices would also harm rival manufacturers.

The company’s counsel said he would consult on reducing the price of the life-saving medicine, adding the firm was ready to undertake to ensure the assistance scheme for patients was continued even after the litigation was over.

Arguments in the case would be resumed tomorrow.

Authorities say Glivec is not a new medicine, but an amended version of a known compound. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s ruling had stated such an amended version was not eligible for a patent, according to Section 3(d) of the Patent Act.

On Tuesday, the counsel said though the name of the compound used might be available in journals, the company’s research had enabled the modification for treatment. “It is like the difference between carbon and diamond — though both are carbon; there is substantial difference in use,” he said.

He added the medicine, with a cost of $800 million in research, was a breakthrough. It is registered in 35 countries. If India didn’t grant it a patent, it would have international implications, as Indian also approached foreign patent offices for registration of their products, he added. Also, a patent was valid for 20 years, and much of this had already been lost in litigation in the appellate board and the Madras High Court, where seven petitions had been moved, he said.

While patient groups and health activists have raised concern on patenting such an incremental innovation, saying this would lead to ‘evergreening’ of patents, impacting the affordability of medicines, says it cannot be accused of ‘evergreening’. “The beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate is the active ingredient of the Glivec medicine. No other drug comprising imatinib was available anywhere in the world before Glivec was launched. Scientists at developed the mesylate salt of imatinib and the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate to make it suitable for patients to take it in a pill form to deliver consistent, safe and effective levels of medicine. This process resulted in a viable drug which revolutionised cancer treatment,” said India Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Ranjit Shahani.

The counsel said the company wasn’t as concerned about the pricing of the drug, as on clarity of Indian law on patents. “Anyone investing would like to know about the patent protection available in this country,” he said, adding, “The purpose of this case is vindication of honour.”

Shahani says the outcome of the case would determine future investments in drug development in India. “Knowing we can rely on patents in India benefits the government, industry and patients, because research-based organisations would know if investing in the development of better medicines for India is a viable long-term option,” he says.

The Supreme Court’s verdict would also be significant because it might have implications on other drugs as well.

“If the court decides in favour of Novartis, there is a possibility that various old cases, in which patents were denied on the basis of Section 3 (d), would be reopened. Besides, there are many drug patent applications from global for drugs not made in India so far, generics for which are available. Then, it is possible a large number of new patent applications could be made here,” says Amit Sengupta of Jan Swasthaya Abhiyan.

image
Business Standard
177 22
Business Standard

Novartis case opens in SC

Company ready to promise assistance scheme for patients will continue even after litigation

BS Reporter  |  New Delhi 



Swiss pharmaceuticals major on Tuesday began its argument in the Supreme Court, asserting its right to a patent for cancer drug Glivec, with the government, four Indian firms and the Cancer Patients Aid Association on the opposite side.

has appealed against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to refuse a patent for the medicine.

counsel stated the company had faced a lot of criticism on the fact that a month’s supply of the drug was priced at Rs 1.20 lakh and, therefore, it wasn’t affordable for many people in the country. He, however, said there was a patients’ assistance scheme through which 80 per cent of blood cancer victims were given free medicine. He also said the company wasn’t recording huge profits, as alleged.

WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE COURT

Drug patent applications that were rejected based 
on section 3 (d) and can gain if SC order goes in favour of Novartis
Company Drugs for HIV
GSK Zidovudine in combination with lamivudine
Roche Valganciclovir
Boehringer Ingelheim Nevaripine syrup
GSK Abacavir

The bench, headed by Aftab Alam, asked when the company was giving the drug free to some patients, why didn’t it cut its price to ensure it was available to a greater number of patients. The judges said the high prices would also harm rival manufacturers.

The company’s counsel said he would consult on reducing the price of the life-saving medicine, adding the firm was ready to undertake to ensure the assistance scheme for patients was continued even after the litigation was over.

Arguments in the case would be resumed tomorrow.

Authorities say Glivec is not a new medicine, but an amended version of a known compound. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s ruling had stated such an amended version was not eligible for a patent, according to Section 3(d) of the Patent Act.

On Tuesday, the counsel said though the name of the compound used might be available in journals, the company’s research had enabled the modification for treatment. “It is like the difference between carbon and diamond — though both are carbon; there is substantial difference in use,” he said.

He added the medicine, with a cost of $800 million in research, was a breakthrough. It is registered in 35 countries. If India didn’t grant it a patent, it would have international implications, as Indian also approached foreign patent offices for registration of their products, he added. Also, a patent was valid for 20 years, and much of this had already been lost in litigation in the appellate board and the Madras High Court, where seven petitions had been moved, he said.

While patient groups and health activists have raised concern on patenting such an incremental innovation, saying this would lead to ‘evergreening’ of patents, impacting the affordability of medicines, says it cannot be accused of ‘evergreening’. “The beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate is the active ingredient of the Glivec medicine. No other drug comprising imatinib was available anywhere in the world before Glivec was launched. Scientists at developed the mesylate salt of imatinib and the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate to make it suitable for patients to take it in a pill form to deliver consistent, safe and effective levels of medicine. This process resulted in a viable drug which revolutionised cancer treatment,” said India Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Ranjit Shahani.

The counsel said the company wasn’t as concerned about the pricing of the drug, as on clarity of Indian law on patents. “Anyone investing would like to know about the patent protection available in this country,” he said, adding, “The purpose of this case is vindication of honour.”

Shahani says the outcome of the case would determine future investments in drug development in India. “Knowing we can rely on patents in India benefits the government, industry and patients, because research-based organisations would know if investing in the development of better medicines for India is a viable long-term option,” he says.

The Supreme Court’s verdict would also be significant because it might have implications on other drugs as well.

“If the court decides in favour of Novartis, there is a possibility that various old cases, in which patents were denied on the basis of Section 3 (d), would be reopened. Besides, there are many drug patent applications from global for drugs not made in India so far, generics for which are available. Then, it is possible a large number of new patent applications could be made here,” says Amit Sengupta of Jan Swasthaya Abhiyan.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Novartis case opens in SC

Company ready to promise assistance scheme for patients will continue even after litigation

Swiss pharmaceuticals major Novartis on Tuesday began its argument in the Supreme Court, asserting its right to a patent for cancer drug Glivec, with the government, four Indian firms and the Cancer Patients Aid Association on the opposite side.

Swiss pharmaceuticals major on Tuesday began its argument in the Supreme Court, asserting its right to a patent for cancer drug Glivec, with the government, four Indian firms and the Cancer Patients Aid Association on the opposite side.

has appealed against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to refuse a patent for the medicine.

counsel stated the company had faced a lot of criticism on the fact that a month’s supply of the drug was priced at Rs 1.20 lakh and, therefore, it wasn’t affordable for many people in the country. He, however, said there was a patients’ assistance scheme through which 80 per cent of blood cancer victims were given free medicine. He also said the company wasn’t recording huge profits, as alleged.

WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE COURT
Drug patent applications that were rejected based 
on section 3 (d) and can gain if SC order goes in favour of Novartis
Company Drugs for HIV
GSK Zidovudine in combination with lamivudine
Roche Valganciclovir
Boehringer Ingelheim Nevaripine syrup
GSK Abacavir

The bench, headed by Aftab Alam, asked when the company was giving the drug free to some patients, why didn’t it cut its price to ensure it was available to a greater number of patients. The judges said the high prices would also harm rival manufacturers.

The company’s counsel said he would consult on reducing the price of the life-saving medicine, adding the firm was ready to undertake to ensure the assistance scheme for patients was continued even after the litigation was over.

Arguments in the case would be resumed tomorrow.

Authorities say Glivec is not a new medicine, but an amended version of a known compound. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s ruling had stated such an amended version was not eligible for a patent, according to Section 3(d) of the Patent Act.

On Tuesday, the counsel said though the name of the compound used might be available in journals, the company’s research had enabled the modification for treatment. “It is like the difference between carbon and diamond — though both are carbon; there is substantial difference in use,” he said.

He added the medicine, with a cost of $800 million in research, was a breakthrough. It is registered in 35 countries. If India didn’t grant it a patent, it would have international implications, as Indian also approached foreign patent offices for registration of their products, he added. Also, a patent was valid for 20 years, and much of this had already been lost in litigation in the appellate board and the Madras High Court, where seven petitions had been moved, he said.

While patient groups and health activists have raised concern on patenting such an incremental innovation, saying this would lead to ‘evergreening’ of patents, impacting the affordability of medicines, says it cannot be accused of ‘evergreening’. “The beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate is the active ingredient of the Glivec medicine. No other drug comprising imatinib was available anywhere in the world before Glivec was launched. Scientists at developed the mesylate salt of imatinib and the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate to make it suitable for patients to take it in a pill form to deliver consistent, safe and effective levels of medicine. This process resulted in a viable drug which revolutionised cancer treatment,” said India Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Ranjit Shahani.

The counsel said the company wasn’t as concerned about the pricing of the drug, as on clarity of Indian law on patents. “Anyone investing would like to know about the patent protection available in this country,” he said, adding, “The purpose of this case is vindication of honour.”

Shahani says the outcome of the case would determine future investments in drug development in India. “Knowing we can rely on patents in India benefits the government, industry and patients, because research-based organisations would know if investing in the development of better medicines for India is a viable long-term option,” he says.

The Supreme Court’s verdict would also be significant because it might have implications on other drugs as well.

“If the court decides in favour of Novartis, there is a possibility that various old cases, in which patents were denied on the basis of Section 3 (d), would be reopened. Besides, there are many drug patent applications from global for drugs not made in India so far, generics for which are available. Then, it is possible a large number of new patent applications could be made here,” says Amit Sengupta of Jan Swasthaya Abhiyan.

image
Business Standard
177 22
Widgets Magazine

More News

  • 370 kg cocaine found at Coca Cola plant 370 kg cocaine found at Coca Cola plant
  • New RBI norms to make FY17 costlier for large firms New RBI norms to make FY17 costlier for large firms
Widgets Magazine
Widgets Magazine

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard