Chennai, July 21 (PTI): The Swiss pharmaceutical major Novartis AG, has received a set back with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board here rejecting its plea to exclude a Technical Member from a bench constituted to hear its appeal against rejection of patent right to one of its product.

The firm objected to the appointment of technical member S Chandrasekaran on the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) Bench on the ground that he had disabled himself to hear its appeal against rejection of patent right for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, as he had deposed in the counter affidavit filed in the Madras High Court.

"He has disabled himself from hearing the appeal in the capacity of a technical member in the light of deposition made by him, thereby taking a stand in the matter and as such he would not be free from bias," the firm contended.

Rejecting the objection, the IPAB Bench comprising board Chairman M H S Ansari and S Chandrasekaran yesterday said "the submissions made by Chandrasekaran have no relevance as they were based on his official capacity as a statutory authority before assuming the post of adjudicator and hence must be eschewed from consideration on the facts of the instant matter".

Originally, the company filed an appeal and a petition in the Madras High Court. The appeal challenged the rejection of its patent application for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, sold under the brandname Gleevee/Glivec.

The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, on the basis of which its application for patent was rejected.

Since there was no IPAB Bench, which is the competent authority to hear the appeals against rejection of patent, the company moved the appeal in the high court.

During the course of hearing, the Union Government notified the constitution of the IPAB Bench. Following this, a Division Bench comprising Justice R Balasubramanian and Justice Prabha Sridevan, which was hearing the matter, referred the appeal by the company, against rejection of patent, to the board.

However, the high court had reserved orders on the petition challenging the validity of the provisions of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.