The Hindu : National : Proceedings on Novartis’ appeal before IPAB stayed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Aug 10, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Proceedings on Novartis’ appeal before IPAB stayed

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: All further proceedings on the statutory appeals filed by Novartis, challenging the rejection of its patent application, pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) were stayed by the Madras High Court on Thursday.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice P. Jyothimani granted the interim relief on a writ petition filed by Novartis AG stating that the IPAB had erred in dismissing its plea to exclude its Technical Member S. Chandrasekaran from hearing its statutory appeals.

Hearing on September 10

The Bench has posted the matter to September 10 for further proceedings.

Novartis’ application to patent the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate was rejected by Chennai Patent Office in January 25, 2006.

In April 2007, the High Court transferred the statutory appeals to the IPAB after a Technical Member was appointed and the Board became functional.

When the IPAB took up the appeal for hearing, Novartis sought to exclude Mr. Chandrasekaran from the Bench, on the ground that he had filed a counter-affidavit in support of the Union of India and the Controller-General of Patents and Designs and hence he would be biased against Novartis. In July 2007, the IPAB rejected the objections. The present writ petition challenges the rejection of its objections.

Describing the timing of appointment of Mr. Chandrasekaran as significant, the company said the IPAB had erred in rejecting its plea to request the Centre to appoint another member in lieu of Mr. Chandrasekaran.

The January 25, 2006 order rejecting Novartis’ patent application was passed by the Assistant Controller under the aegis of the erstwhile Controller-General Chandrasekaran, the petitioner said, adding that he had deposed an affidavit against Novartis in High Court before becoming a Technical Member of the IPAB.

It said he would “suffer from a prejudiced mindset and would not be able to apply his mind in an independent fashion.”

It said: “It is well nigh impossible to expect that a person with an indelible mindset will be able to serve as an unbiased Technical Member (Patent).”

It sought to quash the IPAB order and consequently direct the Board to remove Mr. Chandrasekaran from acting as a Technical Member (Patent) to hear the appeal and direct the Centre to appoint another Technical Member in his place.

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

National