NEW DELHI: Describing the Novartis claiming patent on Gleevec, an anti-leukaemia drug, as an assault on the Indian Patents Act, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Friday asked the Central Government to vigorously defend the Act in the Indian courts and on the international platform in the interests of those suffering from life-threatening diseases.

The challenge by the Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company in the Madras High Court was a precursor to more challenges.

In a statement, the Polit Bureau said the Government should mobilise public opinion against the "greed for profits" of such companies.

It said the CPI (M) and the Left parties were able to introduce public health safeguards in the Amended Patents Act that India was forced to adopt in 2005 to make the Act TRIPS-compliant. These safeguards were now being targeted by the pharmaceutical companies.

It said Gleevec was a test case for the Indian Patents Act. If the patent was accepted, then it would cost Rs. 1,20,000 for a month's medicine against the indigenous cost of only Rs. 8,000.

Novartis had filed a patent application for a slightly modified version of a drug that it had patented in 1993. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which prevents frivolous patents based on small tinkering on existing molecules, was being challenged.

AIDS drugs

A number of second line AIDS drugs were also known before 1995 and therefore could not be granted patents in India. However, drug MNCs were trying to patent them by offering two drugs as a mixture or claiming new use or in a new form, some of the common tricks in "evergreening" old patents. If Section 3 (d) was removed or diluted as the drug majors were demanding, these tactics might work and a major public health protection in India would then be breached.

"This will result in the price of AIDS medicines becoming 20-50 times their current value, as more and more patients shift to second line AIDS drugs. As India is the major source of AIDS medicines today, this would have a worldwide impact," the statement said.

Mashelkar panel report

The drug majors were also trying to confuse the existing Section 3 (d) provisions of the Act with the Mashelkar Committee's report on New Pharmaceutical or Chemical Entities. The Left parties had asked that in addition to 3 (d), patents for pharmaceuticals should be restricted to only new chemical or pharmaceutical entities.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail