The Hindu Business Line : 2-member Bench can look into Novartis’ Glivec case, says HC

Legal tangle
Novartis’ Glivec has been in litigation since late 2003, when it was the first pharmaceutical company to be granted an Exclusive Marketing Rights in the country. Novartis then tried to legally prevent companies like Natco, Cipla and Ranbaxy from selling generic or similar versions of Glivec in India.

P.T. Jyothi Datta

Mumbai, Nov. 13 A two-member Bench comprising the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) can look into the rejection of Novartis’ patent application on its cancer drug Glivec, the Madras High Court said on Tuesday.

The HC’s ruling seems to go with the revised approach that the Government had submitted to the Court early last month, where the Centre had made a similar suggestion, a lawyer familiar with the development told Business Line. The IPAB’s Chairman is Mr Justice M.H.S. Ansari and the Vice-Chairman is Mr Z.S. Negi.

The Government’s suggestion came following Novartis’ objection to the appointment of the former Patent Controller, Mr S. Chandrasekaran, on the IPAB. The reason being that he was head of the Patent Controller’s office when it had rejected Novartis’ application in January 2006.

While the different parties to the case, that include Ranbaxy, Cipla, Hetero, Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA) and Natco are still to receive a copy of the order, the lawyer said it was unclear whether the Chairman can also act as the technical member of the Bench or whether the two-member bench can take technical inputs from another competent authority. Details of the order and the subsequent response of the different parties would be clear only after the order copy is received, the lawyer said.

The case on Novartis’ rejected Glivec patent application had shifted from the Madras HC to the IPAB that was created earlier this April, following a notification from the Centre. But the focus again shifted back to the Madras HC, with Novartis objecting to the appointment of the former Patent Controller as technical member on the IPAB.

Novartis’ Glivec has been in the thick of litigation since late 2003, when it was the first pharmaceutical company to be granted an Exclusive Marketing Rights in the country. Novartis then tried to legally prevent companies like Natco, Cipla and Ranbaxy from selling generic or similar versions of Glivec in India.

But when India started respecting product patents from January 2005, the stage shifted to the Patent Controller’s office. And in January 2006, the Patent Office rejected Novartis’ patent application on Glivec. Subsequently, Novartis filed multiple writs at the Madras HC contesting the rejection of its patent application and certain constitutional parameters that contributed to the rejection.

And even as the patent rejection case made progress, the Madras HC dismissed another case regarding Glivec in August this year, where Novartis had contested certain constitutional parameters that had contributed to the rejection of the Glivec patent application.