Cases reported in (2013) 6 SCC Part 1 – July 07, 2013 Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1 (Civil Appeals Nos. 2706-716 of 2013 with Nos. 2717-28 of 2013, decided on April 1, 2013): A new product in chemicals and especially pharmaceuticals may not necessarily mean something altogether new or completely unfamiliar or strange or not existing before. It may mean something “different from a recent previous” product or a product “regarded as better than what went before” or a product which is “in addition to another or others of the same kind”. However such “new” chemical/pharmaceutical would have to qualify tests of invention and enhanced efficacy to qualify for patent protection. Imatinib Mesylate was a “known substance” from US Patent Zimmermann Patent No. 5,521,184 (1996) and further, appellant could not establish that β-crystalline-Imatinib Mesylate (“β-IM”, for short) had any enhanced therapeutic efficacy over Imatinib Mesylate. Thus, Gleevec/Glivec/β-IM did not at all qualify for an Indian patent. Indian Patent Law supports only really deserving patents in pharmaceuticals and discourages evergreening, as amended portion of S. 3(d) of Patents Act, 1970 sets up a second tier of qualifying standards for chemical substances/pharmaceutical products in order to permit patents for true and genuine inventions but, at the same time, to check any attempt at repetitive patenting or extension of patent term on spurious grounds. Refer the link below to read the full judgment, https://scconline.co.in/cases.aspx?q=(2013)_6_SCC_1&db=1
Posted on: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 05:07:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015