Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Business Standard
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20235,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;patents,medicines,Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Business Standard



Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Business Standard&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Business Standard
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20235,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20094
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;patents,medicines,Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Business Standard



Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Business Standard&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Business Standard



Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Business Standard</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em></p><p align="justify"><em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.</p><p align="justify">D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.</p><p align="justify">Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.</p><p align="justify">Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;</p><p align="justify">India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.</p><p align="justify">Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;</p><p align="justify">Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.</p><p align="justify">According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.</p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong></p><p align="justify">* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection</p><p align="justify">* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005</p><p align="justify">* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.</p><p align="justify">* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate</p><p align="justify">* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act</p><p align="justify">* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar</p><p align="justify">* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices</p><p align="justify">* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC</p><p align="justify">* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded</p><p align="justify">* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Business Standard
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20235,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;patents,medicines,Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Business Standard



Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Business Standard&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Business Standard
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20235,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20094
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;patents,medicines,Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Business Standard



Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Business Standard&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Business Standard



Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Business Standard</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em></p><p align="justify"><em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.</p><p align="justify">D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.</p><p align="justify">Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.</p><p align="justify">Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;</p><p align="justify">India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.</p><p align="justify">Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;</p><p align="justify">Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.</p><p align="justify">According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.</p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong></p><p align="justify">* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection</p><p align="justify">* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005</p><p align="justify">* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.</p><p align="justify">* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate</p><p align="justify">* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act</p><p align="justify">* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar</p><p align="justify">* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices</p><p align="justify">* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC</p><p align="justify">* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded</p><p align="justify">* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f40ba494138-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f40ba494138-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Business Standard
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20235,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;patents,medicines,Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Business Standard



Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Business Standard&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20094,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Business Standard
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20235,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20094
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;patents,medicines,Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Business Standard



Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Business Standard&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Patients&#039; lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients&#039; associations are in celebration mood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &amp;quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &amp;quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &amp;acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &amp;quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp;amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &amp;quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world&#039;s patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis&#039; plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &amp;quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can&#039;t be ignored by MNCs,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization&#039;s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* 2005: India&#039;s patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis&#039;s patent application for imatinib mesylate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jan 2006: Novartis&#039; patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &amp;quot;improved efficacy&amp;quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India&#039;s patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis&#039; appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Business Standard



Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Business Standard</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em></p><p align="justify"><em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.</p><p align="justify">D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.</p><p align="justify">Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.</p><p align="justify">Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;</p><p align="justify">India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.</p><p align="justify">Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;</p><p align="justify">Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.</p><p align="justify">According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.</p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong></p><p align="justify">* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection</p><p align="justify">* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005</p><p align="justify">* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.</p><p align="justify">* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate</p><p align="justify">* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act</p><p align="justify">* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar</p><p align="justify">* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices</p><p align="justify">* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC</p><p align="justify">* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded</p><p align="justify">* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 20094,
		'title' => 'Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Business Standard
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.
</p>
<p align="justify">
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong>
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
</p>
<p align="justify">
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 20235,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 20094,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan',
	'metaKeywords' => 'patents,medicines,Health',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Business Standard



Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Business Standard</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em></p><p align="justify"><em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.</p><p align="justify">D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.</p><p align="justify">Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.</p><p align="justify">Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;</p><p align="justify">India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.</p><p align="justify">Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;</p><p align="justify">Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.</p><p align="justify">According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.</p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong></p><p align="justify">* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection</p><p align="justify">* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005</p><p align="justify">* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.</p><p align="justify">* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate</p><p align="justify">* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act</p><p align="justify">* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar</p><p align="justify">* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices</p><p align="justify">* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC</p><p align="justify">* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded</p><p align="justify">* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 20094,
	'title' => 'Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Business Standard
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.
</p>
<p align="justify">
D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong>
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented
</p>
<p align="justify">
* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act
</p>
<p align="justify">
* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded
</p>
<p align="justify">
* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Business Standard, 2 April, 2013, http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-113040200014_1.html',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'domestic-pharma-lauds-apex-court-verdict-reghu-balakrishnan-20235',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 20235,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 20094
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan'
$metaKeywords = 'patents,medicines,Health'
$metaDesc = '
-The Business Standard



Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up


 Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Business Standard</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up</em></p><p align="justify"><em> </em>Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood.</p><p align="justify">D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, &quot;We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA.</p><p align="justify">Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, &quot;The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the &acirc;-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC.</p><p align="justify">Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: &quot;The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds &amp; avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs.&quot;</p><p align="justify">India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs.</p><p align="justify">Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, &quot;In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world.&quot;</p><p align="justify">Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. &quot;We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs,&quot; she said.</p><p align="justify">According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance.</p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA</strong></p><p align="justify">* 1993:  Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection</p><p align="justify">* 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005</p><p align="justify">* 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India.</p><p align="justify">* 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented</p><p align="justify">* 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate</p><p align="justify">* Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new &quot;improved efficacy&quot; clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act</p><p align="justify">* May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar</p><p align="justify">* Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d)</p><p align="justify">* Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices</p><p align="justify">* Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC</p><p align="justify">* Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded</p><p align="justify">* Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Domestic pharma lauds apex court verdict-Reghu Balakrishnan

-The Business Standard Patients' lobbies cheer ruling on anti-cancer drug Glivec, as affordability and access to life-saving drugs get a leg-up Though the India office here of Swiss pharma giant Novartis wore a gloomy look following the Supreme Court rejection of its Glivec patent application, Indian pharmaceutical companies and patients' associations are in celebration mood. D G Shah, secretary general, The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), comprising leading research-based Indian pharma companies, said, "We welcome the upholding of the refusal by the patent office to grant a patent to Novartis for the â-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate." The verdict has increased the significance of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, as a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies in known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions, said a statement from IPA. Anand Grover, a lawyer for the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), said, "The judgement clearly puts across that new forms of known substances should not be patented if they are not significantly efficacious." The Chennai patent office had rejected the patent application of Novartis for the â-polymorphic form of imatinib mesylate on various grounds in 2006. Among these were that a patent could not be granted for the said form under section 3(d), as it did not have any increase in efficacy over the previously known substance. Novartis appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2007 and this was dismissed in 2009. Novartis then went to the SC. Y K Sapru, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of the CPAA, said: "The verdict will avoid patenting of older compounds & avoid ever-greening of patented products. More than that, it will make anti-cancer life saving drugs affordable and, consequently, result in saving of many lives. And, this will happen not only in India but over 75 other countries where India exports generic drugs." India has already been facing flak from American and European multinational companies for its decision to issue compulsory licences to Indian pharma firms for launching generic versions of patented cancer drugs. Last month, John Castellani, President and CEO, PhRMA, the powerful US-based body for pharma MNCs, said, "In the absence of the investment made by our members, and the resulting research and development, there would be no generic medicines for the world's patients. The responsibility to promote development of new drugs lies with all countries, not solely those in the developed world." Pratibha Singh, advocate, who appeared for Indian drug firms Ranbaxy and Cipla, which had opposed Novartis' plea, said the claims by MNCs that patented drug launches in India would get affected was not true. "We are not against the patent of drugs made by MNCs but against getting patents with minor modifications. India is a huge market which can't be ignored by MNCs," she said. According to the SC decision, to obtain a patent for a new form of a known substance in India, the applicants must show sufficient proof that the new form of a base compound of a known substance is therapeutically more efficacious than the base compound or known substance. CASE HISTORY OF GLIVEC IN INDIA * 1993: Novartis files patent application for the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate, the active ingredient of Glivec. The company does not file a patent in India because at this time, India had excluded chemical compounds from patent protection * 1994-95: India signs World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It must now start granting patents on medicines no later than 2005 * 1998: Novartis files its patent application for Glivec in India. * 2002 : Novartis launches Glivec in India * 2005: India changes its patent law to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, and medicines can now be patented * 2005: India's patent office starts examining patent applications on medicines including Novartis's patent application for imatinib mesylate * Jan 2006: Novartis' patent application on imatinib mesylate (Glivec) is rejected by an Indian patent office on several grounds, including lack of novelty, obviousness and based on a new "improved efficacy" clause in Section 3(d) of the 2005 Indian Patents Act * May 2006: Novartis files two legal challenges in the Madras High Court. One is to appeal the rejection of the patent. The second to have Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act declared contrary to the TRIPS Agreement and to the Indian Constitution * Aug 2007: The Madras High Court rules against Novartis in its case to overturn Section 3(d) in India's patent law. The High Court also transfers the case against the Indian Patent Office decision to the newly formed IP Appellate Board (IPAB), which hears appeals against the decisions of the Registrar * Jun 2009: The IPAB rejects Novartis' appeal and confirms imatinib mesylate does not deserve a patent, on the grounds that the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy as required under Section 3(d) * Aug 2009: Novartis approaches the Supreme Court with a new case - this time seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) by Indian courts and patent offices * Sep 11, 2012: Hearing begins in SC * Dec 4, 2012: Hearing concluded * Apr 1, 2013: SC refuses patent protection for Glivec