The Hindu Business Line : Glivec case: Apex court stays proceedings before IP Board

Mumbai, Jan. 28 The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), regarding the hearing on the rejected patent application of Novartis’ cancer drug Glivec.

The development follows a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma at the apex court, a lawyer familiar with the case told Business Line.

Natco’s plea

Natco’s SLP at the Supreme Court came after the Madras High Court said in November last year that a two-member bench comprising the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the IPAB could look into the case. The Madras HC’s ruling seemed to go with the revised approach that the Government had earlier submitted to the court, where the Centre had made a similar suggestion.

The Centre had come up with a revised approach to get the IPAB to hear the rejection of Novartis’ Glivec patent application, after Novartis objected to the composition of the IPAB. The IPAB had former Patent Controller Mr S. Chandrasekaran, on it as a technical member. And Novartis had objected to this as he was head of the Patent Controller’s office when it had rejected Novartis’ application in January 2006.

Given 4 weeks to respond

All parties to the case, including Novartis, the Centre, generic companies like Ranbaxy and Cipla and the Cancer Patients Aid Association will now have to respond to the latest development at the SC within four weeks, the lawyer said.

The development at the Supreme Court on Monday comes even as the IPAB was scheduled to look into the rejection of Givec’s patent application on the same day.

The case on Novartis’ rejected Glivec patent application had shifted from the Madras HC to the IPAB after the latter was created last 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. The Madras HC subsequently ruled on the issue late last year, following which Natco approached the apex court.