India Supreme Court: Novartis's Glivec patent not novel
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India Supreme Court: Novartis's Glivec patent not novel

The India Supreme Court has upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) denial of Novartis's patent application for anti-cancer drug Glivec

Domestic generic manufacturers Ranbaxy and Cipla brought the opposition, with both represented by Singh & Singh. Anand & Anand acted for Novartis. You can read the Court's ruling here.

The comptroller of patents rejected the Glivec application for lack of novelty. Specifically at issue was section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new formulations of existing drugs are not novel unless they “differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy”. The act specifically refers to alternative forms such as salts and ethers. Glivec is a salt formulation of the known molecule imatinib.

The IPAB agreed with the patent controller, finding that Glivec was not patentable.

Novartis claims that Glivec is a major improvement over the original molecule, stating that “without further development, [imatinib] could not safely be administered to patients and represented only the first step in the process to develop Glivec as a viable treatment for cancer” (emphasis in original).

The Glivec saga has been ongoing for over six years, with Novartis going so far as challenging the constitutionality of section 3(d). On the other side of the dispute, generics and activists claimed that the application was an attempt at evergreening, where a rights holder patents a minor variation of a drug to extend the protection period.

The Glivec case is just the latest development raising concerns among international pharmaceutical companies about IP protection in India. India has denied patent protection to a number of drugs developed by multinationals, including Pfizer’s sutent and Roche’s Pegasys. Observers around the world have also been discussing the country’s increasingly aggressive compulsory licensing programme, whether it improves access to medicines as intended and whether it is in violation of TRIPs.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms explain how monitoring, referrals and relationships with foreign firms helped them get more work at the TTAB
Luke Toft explains why he moved back to Fox Rothschild after working in-house at Sleep Number for five months
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In a seminal ruling, the Beijing Internet Court said images generated by Stable Diffusion counted as original works
Boston-based John Lanza is hoping to work more with life sciences colleagues on the ‘exciting’ application of AI to drug discovery
The Delhi High Court has expressed its willingness to set global licensing terms in the Nokia-Oppo dispute, but it must deal with longstanding problems first
Some patent counsel are still encountering errors even though the USPTO has fully transitioned to the new system
A senior USPTO attorney spoke at a Nokia-sponsored event on the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation today, November 29
IP counsel are ‘flooded’ with queries from clients worried about deepfakes, but the law has so far come up short
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career