Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    NovartisVsUnion LAB Team1 Pulkit Apoorva Debayudh

    Uploaded by

    Apoorva Goel
    The document summarizes the Novartis vs Union of India case. 1. Novartis filed a patent application for a slightly altered version of their expensive drug Glivec seeking longer market exclusivity. 2. The Indian government rejected the application as the new version did not provide better efficacy and allowing the patent would prohibit generic versions. 3. The court upheld this decision, prioritizing the human right to health and access to affordable medicines for most Indians over patent rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    NovartisVsUnion LAB Team1 Pulkit Apoorva Debayudh

    Uploaded by

    Apoorva Goel
    89 views11 pages
    The document summarizes the Novartis vs Union of India case. 1. Novartis filed a patent application for a slightly altered version of their expensive drug Glivec seeking longer market exclusivity. 2. The Indian government rejected the application as the new version did not provide better efficacy and allowing the patent would prohibit generic versions. 3. The court upheld this decision, prioritizing the human right to health and access to affordable medicines for most Indians over patent rights.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    NovartisVsUnion_LAB_Team1_Pulkit_Apoorva_Debayudh.pptx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the Novartis vs Union of India case. 1. Novartis filed a patent application for a slightly altered version of their expensive drug Glivec seeking longer market exclusivity. 2. The Indian government rejected the application as the new version did not provide better efficacy and allowing the patent would prohibit generic versions. 3. The court upheld this decision, prioritizing the human right to health and access to affordable medicines for most Indians over patent rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    89 views11 pages

    NovartisVsUnion LAB Team1 Pulkit Apoorva Debayudh

    Uploaded by

    Apoorva Goel
    The document summarizes the Novartis vs Union of India case. 1. Novartis filed a patent application for a slightly altered version of their expensive drug Glivec seeking longer market exclusivity. 2. The Indian government rejected the application as the new version did not provide better efficacy and allowing the patent would prohibit generic versions. 3. The court upheld this decision, prioritizing the human right to health and access to affordable medicines for most Indians over patent rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 11

    NOVARTIS

    VS
    UNION OF INDIA

    PRESENTED BY:

    APOORVA GOEL

    PULKIT KHANDELWAL

    DEBAYUDH TALAPATRA
    OVERVIEW OF NOVARTIS CASE

    • World’s leading pharmaceutical company filed patent application for its


    new version of expensive drug, Glivec.
    • They decided to seek a patent on a slightly altered version potentially
    giving it longer period of market exclusivity.
    • The case hinged on Sec 3(d) of Indian Contract Act prohibits patent of
    new version of known drug molecule, more effective than before.
    • Many Indian companies produced Generic drugs at very cheap rate.
    OVERVIEW OF NOVARTIS CASE

    ISSUES INVOLVED
    1. Whether Glivec is a patentable product?
    2. Whether it involves ever greening?
    JUDGEMENT
    With the majority under the presence of Aftab Alam J. and Ranjana Prakash
    Desai J. The court held that the patent application is rejected on the
    grounds that:
    OVERVIEW OF NOVARTIS CASE

    1. Mere modification does not give novelty to the product and the applied
    product has no better effect than the already existing drug.
    2. Re-patenting and Ever greening which is prohibited under the Indian
    Patent Law.
    3. Patent for the already existing drug has expired, manufacturing and
    selling of generic version within the country at cheap rate.
    MERITS OF JUDGEMENT

    • A majority of Indian population uses generic version of Glivec at cheap


    rate and enjoy the easy accessibility of medicine.
    • Paved a clear path to establish and secure human rights by complying right
    to health.
    • Human Rights won against pharma Novartis.
    HUMAN RIGHTS

    • Inalienable fundamental right to which a person is inherently entitled


    simply because he is a human being.
    Substantive Rights –
    1. Right to life.
    2. Freedom from torture
    3. Freedom from slavery
    4. Right to fair trial
    5. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
    6. Freedom of movement
    RIGHT TO HEALTH

    • Recognized in the UDHR, ICESCR and Convention the Rights of Person


    with Disabilities.
    • Article 25 of UDHR – Everyone has the right to a standard of living and
    well being of himself and his family.
    • Preamble of WHO declares it to be a fundamental right of every human
    being to enjoy the highest attainable standards.
    RIGHT TO HEALTH

    Defined under Article 21 of ICESCR


    • Impliedly involves right to access medicine tight to treatment and
    precautionary measures.
    • Accessibility increases when the price of medicine is cheap, nation based
    production, availability of alternative at cheap rates etc.
    • Accessibility decreases when price in high, imported medicine and rules
    regarding the exporting countries etc.
    COMPARISON

    • Manufactured and distributed by • Manufactured and distributed by


    Novartis, a foreign company. approved local companies like NATCO.

    • Expensive in nature • Least expensive.

    • Pack of 30 tablets costs $1100. • Nexavar – Generic Version – Pack of


    Accessibility is low. 120 tablets cost $1000.

    • 16000 people in India preferred • Accessibility is high.


    glivec. • 300,000 people prefer generic version.
    HOW THE JUDGEMENT IS HELPFUL?

    • Government shall take quick step to increase accessibility of these generic


    version and the cheap rate of medicine to enhance the mobility and
    accessibility.
    • Makes it easier to extend the accessibility of the generic drugs through its
    extensible manufacturing and distribution.
    • The compulsory licensing of the same drug would not increase its
    accessibility.
    CONCLUSION

    The Judgement of Novartis case can be regarded as the most fruitful, viable
    and traceable decision that meet the human rights to the highest end.

    You might also like