To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

×
Novartis

The ruling marks "a major victory for patients' access to affordable medicines in developing countries," stated Doctors Without Borders.

(Photo: Novartis AG/flickr)

Human Rights Win as Big Pharma 'Novartis' Loses Patent Case

India's Supreme Court rejects plea from Swiss pharmaceutical giant, paving way for more affordable, generic medicines worldwide

News

India's Supreme Court dealt Big Pharma giant Novartis a blow on Monday with a landmark ruling that campaigners say marks a victory for "people over profit," and will make potentially life-saving drugs far more accessible worldwide.

The court ruled against the Swiss pharmaceutical corporation in its years-long challenge to patent a newer version of its cancer drug Glivec, saying the new version wasn't a new medicine, thus allowing generic versions of the drug to be manufactured.

RECOMMENDED...
Trump Increases Federal Law Enforcement Presence, Deploys National Guard In Nation's Capital

New Trump Order Among 'Scariest Things I've Seen in US Politics,' Civil Rights Attorney Says

Alaska

'No Public Lands Are Safe': Trump USDA Moves Forward With Gutting Roadless Rule

Critics have referred to corporations' practice of getting a 20-year patent on a drug and then making minor changes to it and re-patenting it as "evergreening," and derided it for preventing the manufacture of cheaper, generic versions of the drug.

Providing some background is the Guardian's health editor, Sarah Boseley, who writes that multinational drug companies

with support from the US and European governments which want a profitable drug industry, have worked to tighten patent protection for new drugs through national laws and trade agreements. India has been the main focus in its historical role as the pharmacy of the developing world.

Under the World Trade Organisation's trade-related intellectual property rights (Trips) rules, India agreed to bring in patents for drugs in 2005. Drugs without patent protection before that date can still be copied and sold cheaply to developing countries by generics companies.

Novartis began seeking patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec as soon as the law came into force, but as the drug was already on the market the Swiss firm could not make a standard application. Instead, it sought a patent for a slightly altered version that it said was easier for patients to absorb. Novartis argued that this was innovation under Indian law and deserving of a patent.

But India included in its laws a safeguard clause known as Section 3(d) to prevent abuse of patents, humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) explained, and hailed Monday's ruling as "a major victory for patients' access to affordable medicines in developing countries."

"Novartis's attacks on 3(d), one the elements of India's patent law that protect public health, have failed," Leena Menghaney, India Manager for MSF's Access Campaign, said in a statement. "Patent offices in India should consider this a clear signal that the law should be strictly applied, and frivolous patent applications should be rejected."

Dr. Unni Karunakara, MSF's international president, added that the decision "now makes patents on the medicines that we desperately need less likely. This marks the strongest possible signal to Novartis and other multinational pharmaceutical companies that they should stop seeking to attack the Indian patent law."

But the effects of the ruling spread beyond India, Boseley noted:

At stake in the legal battle was not just the right of generic companies to make cheap drugs for India once original patents expire but also access to newer drugs for poorer countries in much of Africa and Asia. India has long been known as the pharmacy of the developing world.

The Cancer Patients Aid Association in India (CPAA) also celebrating the ruling, stating, "We are very happy that the court has recognized the right of patients to access affordable medicines over profits for big pharmaceutical companies through patents. Our access to affordable treatment will not be possible if the medicines are patented. It is a huge victory for human rights," the Guardian reports.

An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder


Dear Common Dreams reader,

The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets.

That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done.

Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good.

Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support.

That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you.

The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams?

Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most.

- Craig Brown, Co-founder

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
big pharmadoctors without bordershuman rightsnovartis

India's Supreme Court dealt Big Pharma giant Novartis a blow on Monday with a landmark ruling that campaigners say marks a victory for "people over profit," and will make potentially life-saving drugs far more accessible worldwide.

The court ruled against the Swiss pharmaceutical corporation in its years-long challenge to patent a newer version of its cancer drug Glivec, saying the new version wasn't a new medicine, thus allowing generic versions of the drug to be manufactured.

Critics have referred to corporations' practice of getting a 20-year patent on a drug and then making minor changes to it and re-patenting it as "evergreening," and derided it for preventing the manufacture of cheaper, generic versions of the drug.

Providing some background is the Guardian's health editor, Sarah Boseley, who writes that multinational drug companies

with support from the US and European governments which want a profitable drug industry, have worked to tighten patent protection for new drugs through national laws and trade agreements. India has been the main focus in its historical role as the pharmacy of the developing world.

Under the World Trade Organisation's trade-related intellectual property rights (Trips) rules, India agreed to bring in patents for drugs in 2005. Drugs without patent protection before that date can still be copied and sold cheaply to developing countries by generics companies.

Novartis began seeking patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec as soon as the law came into force, but as the drug was already on the market the Swiss firm could not make a standard application. Instead, it sought a patent for a slightly altered version that it said was easier for patients to absorb. Novartis argued that this was innovation under Indian law and deserving of a patent.

But India included in its laws a safeguard clause known as Section 3(d) to prevent abuse of patents, humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) explained, and hailed Monday's ruling as "a major victory for patients' access to affordable medicines in developing countries."

"Novartis's attacks on 3(d), one the elements of India's patent law that protect public health, have failed," Leena Menghaney, India Manager for MSF's Access Campaign, said in a statement. "Patent offices in India should consider this a clear signal that the law should be strictly applied, and frivolous patent applications should be rejected."

Dr. Unni Karunakara, MSF's international president, added that the decision "now makes patents on the medicines that we desperately need less likely. This marks the strongest possible signal to Novartis and other multinational pharmaceutical companies that they should stop seeking to attack the Indian patent law."

But the effects of the ruling spread beyond India, Boseley noted:

At stake in the legal battle was not just the right of generic companies to make cheap drugs for India once original patents expire but also access to newer drugs for poorer countries in much of Africa and Asia. India has long been known as the pharmacy of the developing world.

The Cancer Patients Aid Association in India (CPAA) also celebrating the ruling, stating, "We are very happy that the court has recognized the right of patients to access affordable medicines over profits for big pharmaceutical companies through patents. Our access to affordable treatment will not be possible if the medicines are patented. It is a huge victory for human rights," the Guardian reports.

India's Supreme Court dealt Big Pharma giant Novartis a blow on Monday with a landmark ruling that campaigners say marks a victory for "people over profit," and will make potentially life-saving drugs far more accessible worldwide.

The court ruled against the Swiss pharmaceutical corporation in its years-long challenge to patent a newer version of its cancer drug Glivec, saying the new version wasn't a new medicine, thus allowing generic versions of the drug to be manufactured.

Critics have referred to corporations' practice of getting a 20-year patent on a drug and then making minor changes to it and re-patenting it as "evergreening," and derided it for preventing the manufacture of cheaper, generic versions of the drug.

Providing some background is the Guardian's health editor, Sarah Boseley, who writes that multinational drug companies

with support from the US and European governments which want a profitable drug industry, have worked to tighten patent protection for new drugs through national laws and trade agreements. India has been the main focus in its historical role as the pharmacy of the developing world.

Under the World Trade Organisation's trade-related intellectual property rights (Trips) rules, India agreed to bring in patents for drugs in 2005. Drugs without patent protection before that date can still be copied and sold cheaply to developing countries by generics companies.

Novartis began seeking patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec as soon as the law came into force, but as the drug was already on the market the Swiss firm could not make a standard application. Instead, it sought a patent for a slightly altered version that it said was easier for patients to absorb. Novartis argued that this was innovation under Indian law and deserving of a patent.

But India included in its laws a safeguard clause known as Section 3(d) to prevent abuse of patents, humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) explained, and hailed Monday's ruling as "a major victory for patients' access to affordable medicines in developing countries."

"Novartis's attacks on 3(d), one the elements of India's patent law that protect public health, have failed," Leena Menghaney, India Manager for MSF's Access Campaign, said in a statement. "Patent offices in India should consider this a clear signal that the law should be strictly applied, and frivolous patent applications should be rejected."

Dr. Unni Karunakara, MSF's international president, added that the decision "now makes patents on the medicines that we desperately need less likely. This marks the strongest possible signal to Novartis and other multinational pharmaceutical companies that they should stop seeking to attack the Indian patent law."

But the effects of the ruling spread beyond India, Boseley noted:

At stake in the legal battle was not just the right of generic companies to make cheap drugs for India once original patents expire but also access to newer drugs for poorer countries in much of Africa and Asia. India has long been known as the pharmacy of the developing world.

The Cancer Patients Aid Association in India (CPAA) also celebrating the ruling, stating, "We are very happy that the court has recognized the right of patients to access affordable medicines over profits for big pharmaceutical companies through patents. Our access to affordable treatment will not be possible if the medicines are patented. It is a huge victory for human rights," the Guardian reports.

big pharmadoctors without bordershuman rightsnovartis