A Division bench comprising Justice R Balasubramanian and Justice Prabha Sridevan of the Madras High Court on Monday, posted for February 15 the arguments in a case relating to an application by the Swiss pharmaceutical company, Novartis AG, seeking patent for an anti-cancer drug. The case is crucial for India as its outcome could define the country’s future policies on drug patenting.Novartis filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court last year, after its application for patent for its compound (beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate) sold under the brand name of Gleevec or Gilvec, was rejected by the patent office in Chennai represented by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on January 25, 2006. The petitioner, Novartis, moved the court in May last year, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the impugned order of the Controller General of Patents and Designs and allowing its patent application. The respondents listed in the writ petition filed by Novartis include the Union Ministry of Industry and Commerce and the Cancer Patient Aid Association, India, besides the Controller General of Patents and Designs and the Assistant Controller of the Patent office in Chennai.Novartis’s patent application was rejected on the basis of the pre-grants opposition filed by some companies and under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. In its petition, Novartis said that the Assistant Controller, “without taking into consideration” all materials and submissions had “erroneously refused” to proceed with the application for grant of patent.According to Novartis, its application was rejected on the grounds that the compound did not differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy as compared to other similar compounds. Novartis has challenged Section 3 (d) of the Patent Act in a separate writ petition before the High Court.
