Novartis drug ruling a victory for patients
Amrit Dhillon says ruling against Novartis over anti-cancer drug Glivec exposes the flaws in profit-focused business models and also patent laws
Rightly seen as the outcome of a battle between "patients and profits", the Indian Supreme Court's ruling on Monday against Novartis' demand for a patent for its leukaemia drug Glivec has been hailed as a victory for cancer patients.
India is the first country to deny the Swiss drug giant a patent for Glivec. The effect of the ruling will be felt not just in India but in other developing countries, where leukaemia patients who need the medication will now be able to obtain a generic version for a fraction of the price of the branded one.
Novartis wanted a patent on its new version of Glivec. Had it received it, the company would have enjoyed another 20-year monopoly on the medication. But for a patent to be granted, India has decided that the drug in question must be a significant improvement on earlier ones.
In this case, the Supreme Court decided that simply tweaking the formula cannot justify Novartis' plea for a new patent. Health activists claim that Western drug companies are claiming patents for drugs that are neither breakthroughs nor really innovative but simply minor alterations.
For millions of cancer patients in India, it is regarded as a wonderful ruling because it attacks "evergreening", the term used to describe the way firms amend an existing process or product to seek a fresh patent once the original intellectual property protection expires.
There are currently several other cases in the Indian courts involving big names such as Pfizer and Roche that are demanding a patent. India's generic drug manufacturers argue against a patent so that they are free to manufacture cheaper versions.
Some of the drugs are so expensive - about US$2,600 a month for Glivec - that only the rich in India can afford them.