New Delhi, April 2: The Supreme Court's rejection of Novartis's patent plea for cancer drug 'Glivec' was hailed by domestic pharma companies as a "landmark' verdict that will help the poor have easier access to quality medicines but led the Swiss firm to say it will not invest in R and D in India.
Novartis described today's judgement as a "setback", asserting it discouraged future innovation and said the firm will move R and D activities to favourable destinations.
Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma called it "historic".
Novartis India Ltd Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Ranjit Shahani told newsmen in Mumbai that it will, however, keep filing patent applications for innovative products.
Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) said the verdict will come as a relief to patients suffering from dreadful cancer as several Indian companies, including Cipla, Ranbaxy and Natco, can continue marketing 'Imatinib' at a fraction of the cost of the Novartis product.
Imatinib (Glivec) is on the National List of Essential Medicines and is an important drug in the treatment of several cancers such as certain blood and stomach cancers.
"This is a landmark judgement that will serve to set at rest the controversy that was raised regarding the scope of section 3(d) in the Patents Act, which is a crucial safeguard against the extension of patent monopolies of known drugs and the consequent delay in the availability of affordable generic versions," IPA Secretary General D G Shah said in a statement.
Expressing similar sentiments, IDMA Secretary-General Daara B Patel said the order was in favour of poor patients.
"It is a good judgement. It is in favour of the country's poor patients and is in support of Indian generic companies."
Cipla Chairman Y K Hamied said the judgement prevents the use of "frivolous patents" to deny access to medicines for patients.
Novartis will continue to introduce products in the country, but not invest in R&D here, Shahani said.
Original innovation should be recognised in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation especially for unmet medical needs, he said, adding the court ruling is a setback for patients that will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options.
