The company had claimed that Indian patent law did not comply with the country’s Constitution following the rejection of their patent application for a cancer drug "Glevic".
The full text of the judgement has now been published confirming earlier press reports that the judge decided the court had no jurisdiction over whether Indian patent laws complied with World Trade Organization guidelines on intellectual property law. Novartis indicated that it will be unlikely to appeal, although it still awaits the full details of the decision.
"This is a huge relief for millions of patients and doctors in developing countries who depend on affordable medicines from India," said Dr. Tido von Schoen-Angerer, Director of the MSF Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. "The Court’s decision now makes Indian patents on the medicines that we desperately need less likely. We call upon multinational drug companies and wealthy countries to leave the Indian Patents Act alone and stop pushing for ever stricter patent regimes in developing countries."
At the heart of the case was the question of whether drug companies should be allowed patents for improvements to existing drugs. Novartis had argued that such incremental improvements to drugs are vital for the advancement of treatments. They claimed that disallowing patent protection for such advances was not in compliance with WTO rules on intellectual property rights.
But the use of modifications to drugs by pharmaceutical companies to extend patent protection periods - a process sometimes called "ever-greening" - has been criticised by those seeking universal access to essential medicines. The court ruling means that a large scale threat posed to the Indian generic drug industry has been lifted.
Meanwhile Novartis still maintain that protecting the generics industry rather than allowing patent protection for incremental drug improvements will have a negative impact on research and development. "It is clear there are inadequacies in Indian patent law that will have negative consequences for patients and public health in India," Paul Herrling, head of research at Novartis, said. "Medical progress occurs through incremental innovation. If Indian patent law does not recognize these important advances, patients will be denied new and better medicines."
Protest against the Novartis case included a petition signed by more than half a million people world wide. This widespread protest is the likely cause of Novartis vice chairman in India Ranjit Shahani stating "We disagree with this ruling, however we likely will not appeal to the Supreme Court" even though the company was still awaiting the release of the full text of the judgement. However, Novartis still appears willing to continue its challenge to the generics industry as press reports quoted a spokeswoman for the company as saying that Novartis believed it had "advanced the debate" with this court case, and now wanted to combine forces with other interested parties to continue its campaign.
Related EPHA articles:
*UPDATED* Access to medicines: generic medicines threatened in India
EPHA Briefing note on TRIPS, access to medicines and the Novartis case
