Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Friday, Aug 10, 2007
ePaper
Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Aug 10, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home Page
-
Pharmaceuticals Corporate - Courts/Legal Issues Marketing - IPR HC stays IPAB proceedings on Novartis plea
The IPAB erred in rejecting its prayer to request the Central Government to appoint another person in place of Mr Chandrasekharan in limine and applying the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’.
Our Legal Correspondent Chennai, Aug. 9 Novartis won a legal battle on Thursday over the patent issue vis-À-vis rejection of its patent application for its anti-cancer drug ‘Glivec’ by the Patent Controller, with the Madras High Court staying further proceedings in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was hearing the Novartis’ appeal. The drug major’s main objection to the IPAB’s hearing pertained to continuance in office of the Board’s Technical Member (Patent), Mr S. Chandrasekharan, who was allegedly responsible for rejection of its patent application. It contended that the technical Mamber member was former Patent Controller General and he was alleged to be behind the decision to reject the application for patent. The Novartis, during July 2007, preferred a petition with the IPAB pleading that the technical member (Mr. Chandrasekharan) had refused its application for patent, and therefore, he should not hear its appeal. The plea was, however, rejected by the IPAB. Novartis’ contention
The First Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Mr Chief Justice, A.P. Shah, and Mr Justice P. Jothimani, which heard the writ petition of Novartis, held that until further orders, the proceedings before the IPAB were stayed. The Bench adjourned the case to September 10. The Novartis contended that the rejection of its petition by IPAB, inter alia, was on the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’. The IPAB erred in rejecting its prayer to request the Central Government to appoint another person in place of Mr Chandrasekharan in limine and applying the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’. Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of Patents Act laid down that the Bench of IPAB shall consist of one judicial member and one technical member (patent). In view of bias attracted to appointment of the technical member, the IPAB should have asked the Centre to appoint another member in this case. The Centre was empowered to appoint more than one technical member. Hence, the Centre should exercise its power to end this impasse and ensure justice.
More Stories on : Pharmaceuticals | 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
|
