Novartis patent claim case study - Patent law

In November 2003, The Controller General of Patents & Trademarks of India granted exclusive marketing right (EMR) of Glivec, the blood cancer drug to Novartis A.G., a multinational based in Switzerland. EMR was granted for a period of 5 years in expectation of the product patent regime that was due to be enacted in India by January 1, 2005. The EMR , which is the first such granted in the country, gave Novartis the right to be the only company that can produce and market the drug in India. Novartis began enforcing the EMR for Glivec by asking for an injunction against generic manufacturers of the drug in the Madras High Court.
In January 2004, the court granted Novartis an injunction, restraining companies such as Cipla, Ranbaxy and Sun from manufacturing, selling, distributing or exporting the drug. The injunction was later made absolute by a single Judge of the High Court.

Once the generic manufacturers stopped producing Glivec, the price of the drug jumped from approximately Rs.10, 000 for a month's requirement to around Rs.1, 20,000.

Indian drug companies went in appeal, which was heard by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. They contended that Novartis had obtained a patent in the U.S. and Canada in respect of 'pyramadine derivatives and processes for preparation thereof'. They argued that no patent was filed in India for imatinib mesylate. The EMR has been fiercely challenged in courts by generic producers of the drug on the grounds that the compound being a derivative of a molecule known prior to 1995 did not satisfy the novelty criterion in the Patents Act.

Novartis said that the EMR was conferred for a period of five years, or until an order was passed on the patent claim in India, whichever was earlier. Novartis in 1997 applied for grant of patent for the drug glivec in the patent office in Chennai.

In 2005, the patent act was amended. The Amendment Act 2005 granting product patent, provides that EMRs would either be replaced by patents (if granted) or cancelled (if patents were rejected).

By way of opposition, Cipla Limited along with other generic producers filed their representation under the Patents Act, 1970 sec. 25(1) as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Patents Rules, 2003, r. 55 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The following two issues will be argued.

Whether the product applied for patents qualified to be an invention as the product was anticipated by prior publication and obviousness.

 Whether the Patent Specification brought out any improvement in the efficacy of the beta crystals over the known substance as required by Sec.3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The Assistant Controller held imatinib mesylate is already known from prior publications because the claims 6 to 23 of the US Patent claim a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of the base compound and the patent term extension certificate, specifically mentions imatinib mesylate as the product. Further the US Patent discloses methanesulphonic acid as one of the salt forming groups and the patent specification clearly states that the required acid addition salts are obtained in a customary manner. Also that imatinib mesylate normally exist in the beta crystals form, which is thermodynamically most stable product and thus the invention is obvious and anticipated by prior publication; hence not an invention under the Patents Act.

The Controller agreed with the contention of the opponent that a difference of 30% on comparing the relative bioavailability of the freebase with that of the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate which could be due to difference in their solubility in water, did not bring out any improvement in the efficacy of the beta crystals over the known substance and thus could not be patnetable under Sec. 3(d) of the Patents Act. Mr.V.Rengaswamy, Asst. Controller of Patents & Designs, the learned judge in the present case refused to proceed with the application for Patent.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Indian Patent Office in Chennai, Novartis has filed a Writ Petition before the Chennai High Court in Jan 2006 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3 (d) of The Patents Act and also for quashing of the order of the Patent Office for its refusal to grant product patent. It asked the court to declare s3(d) as being non compliant with TRIPS and arbitrary and in violation of Ar14 of the constitution.

On Aug 7 2007 the Madras HC dismissed the petition filed by the Swiss pharma. The court held that s3 (d) of the Patents Act as amended in 2005 along with its explanation is valid. This decision has stymied Novartis move to challenge the rejection of patent application by the patent office.

The appeal against the rejection of patent has to be decided by the IPAB. The court transferred the case to IPAB after the government announced the setting up of IPAB and declared the transfer of all pending IP related appeals to it The IPAB has appointed former Patent Controller General S Chandresekaran to hear the appeal. Novartis filed a petition in the IPAB to appoint new member in place of S Chandresekaran on the ground that he was responsible for the patent application rejection. IPAN dismissed the petition.

On Aug 1 2007 Novartis filed an appeal in the Madras HC challenging IPAB s decision.

The appeal is pending for hearing in the HC. Also the appeal against decision of patent office rejecting the patent for Glivec is pending. The decision of the Madras HC is a landmark decision after the amendment act of 2005. The decision makes the appeal for rejection of patent weak; thus drugs being available at economic rates throughout the county.

Related Articles:
Trips And Public Health
Transborder reputation of Trade Marks.
Patentability
Patenting of Micro-Organisms in India: An Overview
Plagiarism
Trade Mark Law in India and Its Violation
Registration of Unconventional Trademarks
Copy right : Seductive mirage
Traditional Medicine and Intellectual Property Rights-An Indian Perspective
Copyright Societies
Intellectual properties rights
Advertising
Copyright Wars
Comparative Advertisement and Infringement of Trademark
Copyright Amendment Bill 2010
Trade Secrets as an Intellectual Property Right Under Indian Law
Section 25 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999
IPR protection in outer space activities
The Role of Indian Judiciary with Special Reference to Global IP Regime
Bajaj Auto Limited
Author's moral Right
Indian Copyright Software
Competition Law vis-a-vis IPR rights
Product Patent and Exclusive Marketing Rights
Reprography Regulatory Mechanisms
Necessity of Publication in Copyright
Anton Piller in protecting the IPR
Originality Under Copyright Law-Is There Any Definite Standard?
online Copyright Infringement and ISP Liability
Compliance of Trips in Indian Patent Law
Registration and filing of Copyrights in India
Patentability of Biotechnological in Indian Agriculture
Infringement of trademark and what constitutes honest practice in relation to trade and bussiness
The Rights protected by Copyright Law
Working of Patents in India
Passing off under trademark
China and USA: Conflict arises in the IPR Protection in consideration with India
Trade Secrets and Competition Act
Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010
Registration of shape of goods as Design
Plant Variety Protection In India: An Alternative To Patents
Compulsory Licensing To Generic Drugs - A Lifeline To A Patient
Universal Copyright Convention
Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Confronting Paradigms
Copyrighting a Documentary Film
Importance of IPR in Business World
Protection of Copyright In The Digital Age The Role And Liabilities of ISPs In India
Emerging paradigm of celebrity marks
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd
Patent of Addition
Intellectual Property Rights, Statutory Licensing In India
Trademark Infringement and Remedies
Intellectual Property Rights in India
IPR Knowledge at the Door Itself
India: Patent Highlights of 2014
IPR Issues in Space Activities
Steps in Conducting a Patent Search
Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015 changes on the face of it. (Part I)
WHY a Registered Trademark in INDIA
Brand Protection Agency Racket in India?
Design Your Sound Make Your Sound A Mark
Trademark Infringement and Passing off in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Trademark Law in Music and Film Industry
National IPR Policy 2016
The Effectiveness of the Remedies for Copyright Infringement
Protecting Tradition and Culture in India: Development of A Sui Generis System
Sports and IPR
De Jure Mobile Applications under the IP Law
Protecting Tradition And Culture In India Development of A Sui Generis System
Trademark infringement and passing off Indian pharmaceutical industry
International Commercial Arbitration
Patent for technological companies
Semi conductor integrated circuit lay out design protection
Semiconductor Integrated Circuit-Prevent Chip Pirates
Major changes brought about by the Trademark Rules,2017
Novelty under the Designs Act,2000
Infringement of Patents
John Locke’s Labour Theory: A Justification of IPRs

The author can be reached at: [email protected] / Print This Article

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: [email protected]

Divorce by Mutual Consent in Delhi/NCR

Right Away Call us at Ph no: 9650499965

Articles of Yesteryears

Click on the link Below to check articles submitted in previous years:
Latest Articles - Law Articles 2017 - Law Articles 2016 - Law Articles 2015 - Law Articles 2014 - Law Articles 2013 - Law Articles 2012 - Law Articles 2011 - Law Articles 2010 - Law Articles 2009 - Law Articles 2008 - Articles 2007 - Law Articles 2006 - Law Articles 2000-05 - Archive