tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1772025208272568305..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Public health and IP in India: Novartis loses Gleevec patent appeal at the Supreme CourtVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54445742041494445622013-04-06T14:36:21.724+01:002013-04-06T14:36:21.724+01:00My comments are highly critical of Indian practice...My comments are highly critical of Indian practices, but they are not based on prejudice.<br /><br />I personally do not see India as a socialist state. Far from it. It's class system is probably (purely speculatory) what gave it such close ties to Olde England. Maybe not so olde.<br /><br />"..a simple case about Art 3 (d)"?<br /><br />Yes, but that should not diminish its relevance. The result may not differ to the likes of T0777/08, but it is the process of obtaining that result that is of sole importance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47361304028154691582013-04-06T06:02:08.899+01:002013-04-06T06:02:08.899+01:00"India's strong stance on minor drug inno..."India's strong stance on minor drug innovations could reverberate in national parliaments and courthouses of the developed world as Australia, the EU and Canada get ready to discuss and ban patent protection for frivolous improvements" http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/eu-australia-canada-may-follow-indias-patent-law/articleshow/19376054.cms <br /><br />Other nations will also tighten their laws and have clauses like section 3(d) of Indian patent act. Rahulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74008008388498692002013-04-05T08:09:26.747+01:002013-04-05T08:09:26.747+01:00Would everyone please calm down.
The media cover...Would everyone please calm down. <br /><br />The media coverage that has followed this Supreme Court decision, and dare I say the comments on this blog, have shone a light on many a prejudice. <br /><br />This was a simple case about Art 3 (d). If you look at what the end result was, then there is not a great deal of difference between what the Indian Supreme Court has come up with and the position that we have in Europe with decisions such as T 0777/08. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11524409219383120532013-04-05T06:26:24.724+01:002013-04-05T06:26:24.724+01:00To Anon @21:19
I agree with all your points barri...To Anon @21:19<br /><br />I agree with all your points barring this <br /> "the Supreme Court judges clearly only had the interests of India's generic drug makers at heart when they made their decision." In this particular case, SC totally relied on prior art reference.<br /><br />On a different yet similar line, India, since independence, is being governed by the stupid philosophy and romanticism of "Socialism" the more apt term would be "Nehruvian Socialism" which is actually sick form of socialism which combines "selfish" (pun intended on "socialist" leaders) political aspirations with populist policies for immediate political benefits. That system has crept into the minds of average Indian. They cannot think beyond socialism. For them, everything ought to be free or cheap, otherwise it is against "morality" or "public order". I am an India, so I know it. <br /><br />Most of the court orders are not driven by law,rather by this idea. All laws in India are not interpreted in the spirit of legal excellence but in a backdrop of socialism. Even though I disagree with your statement that this case was driven by interests of Indian generic manufacturers, I won't be surprised if it comes out to be true.Rahulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16087085188153830262013-04-04T21:19:16.363+01:002013-04-04T21:19:16.363+01:00Section 3(d) is in breach of TRIPs. This section ...Section 3(d) is in breach of TRIPs. This section provides that certain inventions are not 'inventions'. This is not an assessment of patentability based on the facts.<br /><br />India's drug firms contribute nothing to the advancement of healthcare.<br /><br />India is one of the worst examples of a divided society and the wealthy couldn't care less about the health of the poor.<br /><br />The Supreme Court judges clearly only had the interests of India's generic drug makers at heart when they made their decision.<br /><br />The answer to the question of anon, re why don't generics make the non-patented form: They don't because they don't have the knowledge, experience or intellect to do anything other than direct copying and their desire is only to make a fast buck.<br /><br />Ever wondered why you suddenly get phone calls about compensation for car accidents shortly after reporting a claim to to an insurance company with a call centre in India? I have.<br /><br />Ever wondered how your email accounts are hacked shortly after allowing a service provider in India access your computer? I have.<br /><br />India is an untrustworthy place to do business. IP firms tout for business quoting their high levels of confidentiality, such as 92%! Only 8% of clients' information is leaked every year. Way to go IN!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61929537862261595662013-04-04T13:32:48.900+01:002013-04-04T13:32:48.900+01:00@Anonymous. An affidavit cited by the Supreme Cour...@Anonymous. An affidavit cited by the Supreme Court stated that:<br />"a) The beta crystal form has substantially more beneficial flow properties and<br />thus results in better processability than the alpha crystal form.<br />(b)The beta-crystal form of the methanesulfonic acid addition salt is the thermodynamically more stable form at room temperature. Greater stability is thus to be expected.<br />(c) The beta-crystal form is less hygroscopic than the alpha-crystal form of the methanesulfonic acid addition salt of a compound of formula I.<br />(d) The lower hygroscopicity is a further advantage for processing and storing the acid addition salt in the beta-crystal form."<br />As the author noted, the Court said that these properties may increase the drug's processability and storability, but have nothing to do with its therapeutical efficacy. See Paragraph 187:<br />"187. In whatever way therapeutic efficacy may be interpreted, this much is absolutely clear: that the physico-chemical properties of beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, namely (i) more beneficial flow properties, (ii) better thermodynamic stability, and (iii) lower hygroscopicity, may be otherwise beneficial but these properties cannot even be taken into account for the purpose of the test of section 3(d) of the Act, since these properties have nothing to do with therapeutic efficacy."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2264009257944032462013-04-04T08:30:03.882+01:002013-04-04T08:30:03.882+01:00If the Beta form is not beneficial to the patients...If the Beta form is not beneficial to the patients, why do the generic manufacturers wish to sell it rather than the old, non-beta form?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44269340539145538522013-04-04T05:40:18.581+01:002013-04-04T05:40:18.581+01:00Supreme Court has basically struck down the argume...Supreme Court has basically struck down the argument of "affordability of pharmaceutical drug to be considered while granting a patent". The judgment heavily focussed on section 3d and other relevant sections under which Glivec was claimed as "not an invention". This is one laudable judgment to keep the lazy armchair champagne swilling healthcare activists of India from hijacking the debate of patentability of pharmaceutical products to the issue of "affordability". While Supreme Court rightly kept healthcare activists' romanticism at bay, it also tackled Novartis' attempt to patent frivolous "inventions". <br /><br />As usual, Novartis and the healthcare activists, in their respective press releases, are harping more on affordability, accessibility etc. while completely forgetting that Supreme Court did not even consider the claims made by activists under section 3b and Novartis is also projecting a wrong image of the judgment making it appear like a judgment driven by public health benefits even though the patent was rejected purely on technical grounds of prior disclosure in a patent. Rahulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44038525114950774242013-04-03T22:20:25.238+01:002013-04-03T22:20:25.238+01:00Novartis is responding quite vehemently to this ju...Novartis is responding quite vehemently to this judgement: http://www.novartis.com/newsroom/product-related-info-center/glivec.shtml. But the public opinion in India is highly satisfied with the Supreme Court's decision (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/landmark-verdict-gives-big-boost-to-cancer-patients/article4569056.ece).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com