Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Novartis v. Union of India & Others is a landmark decision by a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of whether Novartis could patent Gleevec in India, and was the culmination of a seven-year-long litigation fought by Novartis. The Supreme Court upheld the Indian patent office's rejection of the patent application.
Novartis was formed in 1996 by the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. [6] It was considered the largest corporate merger in history during that time. [6] The pharmaceutical and agrochemical divisions of both companies formed Novartis as an independent entity. The name Novartis was based on the Latin terms, “novae artes” (new skills). [6]
The Supreme Court issued its decision in 2013, ruling that the substance that Novartis sought to patent was indeed a modification of a known drug (the raw form of imatinib, which was publicly disclosed in the 1993 patent application and in scientific articles), that Novartis did not present evidence of a difference in therapeutic efficacy ...
(Reuters) -Novartis failed to convince a federal court to block generic drugmaker MSN Pharmaceuticals from launching its own version of Novartis' blockbuster heart-failure drug Entresto, according ...
Novartis had filed a patent for Glivec in 1997. [30] An exclusive marketing right was also granted for Novartis in 2003 and the application were approved in 2005 . [ 30 ] In 2013, the Supreme Court of India upheld the rejection of the patent application of Glivec by Novartis , [ 31 ] ending the 10-years battle between the proprietary drug ...
Novartis v. Union of India & Others is a landmark decision, in which Indian Supreme Court upheld rejection of Novartis patent by Indian patent office. The key basis for the rejection was the part of Indian patent law that was created by amendment in 2005, describing the patentability of new uses for known drugs and modifications of known drugs.
A negative aspect of the patent law also emerged in this period – the abuse of patent privilege to monopolise the market and prevent improvement from other inventors. A notable example of this was the behaviour of Boulton & Watt in hounding their competitors such as Richard Trevithick through the courts, and preventing their improvements to ...
The Patents Act removed composition patents for foods and drugs, and though it kept process patents, these were shortened to a period of five to seven years. The resulting lack of patent protection created a niche in both the Indian and global markets that Indian companies filled by reverse-engineering new processes for manufacturing low-cost ...