Novartis not to plead Glivec case
Novartis moves to Madras HC seeking removal of former patent chief from IPAB.
By Noemie Bisserbe, TNN |
MUMBAI: Triggering a fresh legal wrangle, Swiss drug major Novartis on Wednesday filed a writ petition with the Madras High Court contesting the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’s decision to let former Patent Controller General S Chandrasekaran hear its appeal for Glivec.
“We expect the opportunity to explain our case clearly to an objective board. Because the current technical member of the appellate board was responsible for the original rejection of the Glivec patent, and was a party in the patent appeal in the high court, where he filed an affidavit on behalf of the offices of the Controller General of Patents, we believe he cannot act as an impartial member of the Appellate Board,” a Novartis’ spokesperson said on Wednesday.
Novartis had filed a petition with the IPAB last month insisting that the newly appointed technical member to the board had refused its patent for anti-cancer drug Glivec in the first place, and should therefore not hear its appeal. However, the IPAB dismissed Novartis’ objection.
“I honestly do not understand the stand of the IPAB,” said Novartis’ vice chairman and MD Ranjit Shahani. “Novartis is not against the IPAB. On the contrary we believe that its creation is a great step towards setting up a strong IP regime in the country,” he said.
In a separate case, the Delhi High Court recently held that Mr Chandrasekaran could not hear Magotteaux International’s appeal to the patent office decision to reject one of its patent’s application.
Following the rejection of its patent application by the Delhi Patent office, Magotteaux International — a Belgian company — had filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court. The case was then transferred to the IPAB. However, like Novartis, Magotteaux filed a petition with the high court, insisting that Mr Chandrasekaran should not hear its appeal as it was under his tenure that its patent application was rejected in the first place.
The Madras Patent Office rejected Novartis’ patent application for Glivec in January 2006, arguing that the Basel-based drug maker’s innovation was obvious and did not meet the requirements of section 3(d) —a legal clause specific to the Indian patent law, which stipulates that modifications of already-known medicines cannot be patented unless they make the drug significantly more effective.
While Glivec is a new medicine, patented in over 40 countries around the world, Novartis is seeking patent protection in India for a crystalline form of the drug, as the original molecule was invented prior to 1995, and is therefore not eligible for a patent in India.
Novartis has last year filed a petition with the Madras High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3(d).
“We expect the opportunity to explain our case clearly to an objective board. Because the current technical member of the appellate board was responsible for the original rejection of the Glivec patent, and was a party in the patent appeal in the high court, where he filed an affidavit on behalf of the offices of the Controller General of Patents, we believe he cannot act as an impartial member of the Appellate Board,” a Novartis’ spokesperson said on Wednesday.
Novartis had filed a petition with the IPAB last month insisting that the newly appointed technical member to the board had refused its patent for anti-cancer drug Glivec in the first place, and should therefore not hear its appeal. However, the IPAB dismissed Novartis’ objection.
“I honestly do not understand the stand of the IPAB,” said Novartis’ vice chairman and MD Ranjit Shahani. “Novartis is not against the IPAB. On the contrary we believe that its creation is a great step towards setting up a strong IP regime in the country,” he said.
In a separate case, the Delhi High Court recently held that Mr Chandrasekaran could not hear Magotteaux International’s appeal to the patent office decision to reject one of its patent’s application.
Following the rejection of its patent application by the Delhi Patent office, Magotteaux International — a Belgian company — had filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court. The case was then transferred to the IPAB. However, like Novartis, Magotteaux filed a petition with the high court, insisting that Mr Chandrasekaran should not hear its appeal as it was under his tenure that its patent application was rejected in the first place.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It is for the same reasons that Novartis is today opposed to Mr Chandrasekaran hearing our appeal on Glivec,” said Mr Shahani. Novartis hopes that the Madras High Court will, like the Delhi High Court did for Magotteaux, rule in its favour.The Madras Patent Office rejected Novartis’ patent application for Glivec in January 2006, arguing that the Basel-based drug maker’s innovation was obvious and did not meet the requirements of section 3(d) —a legal clause specific to the Indian patent law, which stipulates that modifications of already-known medicines cannot be patented unless they make the drug significantly more effective.
While Glivec is a new medicine, patented in over 40 countries around the world, Novartis is seeking patent protection in India for a crystalline form of the drug, as the original molecule was invented prior to 1995, and is therefore not eligible for a patent in India.
Novartis has last year filed a petition with the Madras High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3(d).
Start a SIP with as low as ₹500 with ET Money App!
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
