On July 4 the Patent Office dismissed a petition by Natco Pharma opposing the decision by the Patent Office to hear the arguments of the patentees before deciding whether or not to grant the licences.
In September last year Hyderabad-based generic company Natco Pharma applied to the Delhi Patent Office for compulsory licences to export two drugs to Nepal and Ukraine using a Doha-style compulsory licence.
The drugs were Sutent, which is made by Pfizer, and Roche's Tarceva, which is also the subject of a
controversial patent litigation case
in the Delhi High Court.
Natco Pharma filed a petition saying that Section 92(A) of India's Patent Law and the Patent Rules 2006 do not require that the patentee be given a hearing. Natco argued that if the conditions for a compulsory licence are fulfilled then the Patent Office should grant the applications.
On July 4 the Patent Office decided to grant the patent owners hearings in both cases.
"You cannot ignore the patentee in these applications," said Archana Shanker, a partner of Anand and Anand, the firm that is representing Roche and Pfizer in the cases. "When deciding on terms and conditions you have to take into consideration the expense of developing the product, which can only be provided by the patentee," she added.
Shanker told
Managing IP
that the hearing in the Sutent application will take place on July 24 and the Tarceva hearing will follow in August.
S Majumdar & Co is representing Natco Pharma in the compulsory licence applications.
The
News Focus
in the May edition of
Managing IP
looks at India's patent battles in more detail.
