Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Friday, Feb 23, 2007
ePaper
Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Feb 23, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
-
Courts/Legal Issues Marketing - IPR Novartis' charges against Indian patent law refuted Our Legal Correspondent
The first part of Section 3(d), taken along with the explanation, only prohibits camouflaged inventions for the purpose of continuing the patent regime.
In the counter to the petition filed before a Division Bench by the pharmaceutical major Novartis AG challenging the rejection of their patent application for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, Mr Gopalan said that there was nothing in the provisions of the Act which could be said to be arbitrary. There was also no question of discrimination that could be attributed to the patent-holders. Discrimination meant manifestly arbitrary. On the other hand, the amendment made to the law conformed to the aspirations of the people. He submitted before the Bench, comprising Justices Mr R. Balasubramanian and Mr Prabha Sridevan, that there were sufficient guidelines in the statement of objects and reasons of the amendment Act, as also in the other provisions of the law. These guidelines vested the country with all power under the amended Section 3(d). Hence, no discrimination could be attributed to India. Turning to the criticism of the petitioner that the law inhibited patenting of the derivative, which was new and involved inventive step and industrial application, the Additional Solicitor General said that Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement also contemplated that patents be given only to inventions which were new and they would have an inventive step. Mr Gopalan cited the various articles of TRIP and said these gave member-states freedom to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the agreement within their own local system and practices. These articles only meant that the amendments made to the law should be constitutionally valid.
No camouflages
The first part of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, taken along with the explanation, only prohibited camouflaged inventions for the purpose of continuing the patent regime. An invention with a mere change of form but without any enhanced efficacy could not be granted patent. If granted, it would be arbitrary. Arguments against the order of rejection of the Assistant Controller of Patents were also advanced by other pharmaceutical patent holders.
More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | IPR | Pharmaceuticals
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|
