Cancer drug just got cheaper as Novartis loses patent fight

Supreme Court rejects claim that the pharmaceutical major’s Glivec is the outcome of invention.

Published: 02nd April 2013 07:38 AM  |   Last Updated: 02nd April 2013 07:38 AM   |  A+A-


In a major blow to Swiss pharma giant Novartis, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected its plea for a patent on cancer drug Glivec, a verdict that is expected to pave the way for Indian firms to provide affordable drugs to lakhs of cancer patients in the country.

Ending a seven-year legal battle by Novartis to have exclusive right for manufacturing Glivec and to restrain Indian firms from making generic medicines, the apex court, while dismissing its plea, held that there was no new invention and no new substance used in the drug prescribed for treating blood, skin and other types of cancer.

Indian pharmaceutical companies had opposed the claim of Novartis saying it was not entitled for the patent and alleged that it is indulging in “ever-greening” of patent by simply changing the composition of the ingredients of the drug.

A Bench comprising justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai dismissed the claim of the Swiss firm seeking exclusive rights for manufacturing the cancer drug.

The Bench held that ‘imatinib mesylate’ used in Glivec is a known substance and Novartis can’t claim patent over the drug for using this chemical.

It is stated that a one-month dose of Glivec costs about `1.2 lakh, while generic drugs, manufactured by Indian companies, cost about `8,000 for the same quantum. Thus, the verdict is seen as a great boon for cancer patients in India.

Justice Aftab Alam, writing the judgment, noted that Novartis had filed an application on July 17, 1998, for grant of a patent for imatinib mesylate in beta crystalline form at the Chennai Patent Office. After the application was made and before it was taken up, several amendments were introduced in the Indian Patents Act, 1970, which brought about fundamental changes in the patent law of the country, the judge noted.

The Assistant Collector of Patents and Designs heard all the parties in December 2005, as provided under Patent Rules 2003, and rejected the application of Novartis for a patent.

After this, Novartis filed two petitions in the Madras HC seeking a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patent Act is unconstitutional. 


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp