Patentability of Patent Evergreening in the Pharmaceutical Sector: Novartis AG versus The Union of India

Authors

  • Tommy Hendrix Regional Research and Innovation Division, Regional Planning Research and Development Agency, Bogor Regency, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2822-8798
  • Angga Wijaya Holman Directorate of Strategic Studies, Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy/Tourism and Creative Economy Agency, Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15575/adliya.v18i1.27010

Keywords:

Patent Evergreening, Patentability, Pharmaceutical Sector.

Abstract

This paper discusses the inventions in the pharmaceutical sector containing the nature of 'evergreening' based on the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Novartis's versus the Union of India. Patent ‘evergreening refers to the business practice of patent applications for inventions in the pharmaceuticals or medicines sector that are insignificant novel compared to previous similar inventions to extend the patent protection period that implies the increasing selling price of drugs on the market. These differences resulted in India's having to anticipate the legal issues and exclude patents for inventions containing 'evergreening' properties by applying high patentability requirements. Patent' evergreening' has implications for blocking the purpose of patent existence as a tool of dissemination of science because this practice extends the period of temporary monopoly rights ownership of patents and hinders public access to medicines at affordable prices. This research uses comparative legal methods to determine the characteristics of the patentability requirement between the Indian Patent Law, TRIPs, and the Indonesian Patent Law. The decision has implications for Indonesia as a consideration, especially for the Government of Indonesia in drafting the new law that anticipates the practice of patent 'evergreening' in Indonesia.

References

Abbott, Ryan. Of Evergreening and Efficacy: The Glivec Patent Case. Equillibri. 2013:1-7. http://www.equilibri.net/nuovo/print/2412.

Abbott, Frederick. M. The Judgment in Novartis v. India: What The Supreme Court of India Said. Inside Views, Intellectual Property Watch. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2250494. Published 2013. Accessed October 28, 2021.

Aiyar, Swaminathan. S. A. West Should Learn from India’s High Patent Standards. Swaminomics. Published 2013. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/Swaminomics/west-should-learn-from-india-s-high-patent-standards.

Basheer, Shamnad. Limiting the Patentability of Pharmaceutical Inventions and Microorganisms: A Trips Compatibility Review. SSRN Electron J. 2005;(November):1-61. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1391562.

Chatterjee, Patralekha. Novartis Loses Patent Bid: Lessons from India’s 3(d) Experience. Intellectual Property Watch. https://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/01/novartis-loses-patent-bid-lessons-from-indias-3d-experience/. Published 2013. Accessed October 28, 2021.

Correa, Carlos. M. Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Relating to Pharmaceuticals.; 2016. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.1659.3526.

Durham, Alan, L. Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide. 5th ed. Westport: Praeger Publishers; 2018.

Fortas, Abe. Brenner v. Manson (U.S. Supreme Court, 383 US 519 (1966). 519, 1-3.

Franzosi, Mario. Novelty and Non-Obviousness: The Relevant Prior Art. J World Intellect Prop. 2000;3(5):683-695. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2000.tb00148.x.

Harper, Bruce. M. TRIPS Article 27.2: An Argument for Caution. William Marry Environ Law Policy Rev. 1997;21(2):381-420. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol21/iss2/4.

Indonesian Law Office. Indonesia Patent Law as Amended by Law No. 14.; 2001:1-54.

Jhamtani, Hira. Memahami Rejim Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Terkait Perdagangan (TRIPS). Jakarta https://komunitaskreatifbali.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/memahami-rejim-hak-kekayaan-intelektual-terkait-perdagangan.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2021.

Kojiro, Oce. Glivec vs Hydrea. https://ocekojiro.wordpress.com/glivec-gleevec-vs-hydrea/. Published 2010. Accessed October 20, 2021.

Li, Xuan. The Impact of Higher Standards in Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Industries under the TRIPS Agreement – A Comparative Study of China and India. World Econ Wiley Blackwell. 2008;31(10):1367-1382. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01133.x.

Merges, Robert. P., Menell, Peter. S., & Lemley, Mark. A. Intellectual Property in The New Technological Age. 3rd. ed. New York: Aspen Law & Business; 1997. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL22818529M/Intellectual_property_in_the_new_technological_age.

Ministry of Law and Justice India. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. An Act Further to Amend the Patents Act, 1970. Vol 1927. India; 2005:2-18. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/in/in018en.pdf.

Mueller, Janice. M. The Tiger Awakens: The Tumultuous Transformation of India’s Patent System and The Rise of Indian Pharmaceutical Innovation. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev. 2007;68(3):491-642. Doi:10.5195/lawreview.2007.79.

Mota, Sue. A. The Doctrine of Equivalents and Prosecution History Estoppel: The Supreme Court Supports Flexibility Over Certainty in Patent Cases in Festo v. SMC. Richmond J Law Technol. 2002;9(1):1-12. http://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolt/vol9/iss1/4%0AThis.

Palit, Amitendu. Drug Patents in India: Turf Battles. 2013;(203):1-6.

Patent Office of India. Patent Office of India Contents. Vol 1. India; 1970:1-24. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/scp/en/exceptions/replies/india_2.pdf.

Pogge, Thomas. The Health Impact Fund: Better Pharmaceutical Innovations at Much Lower Prices. Cambridge University Press; 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511750786.008.

Rajnish K. Rai, Patentable Subject Matter Requirements: An Evaluation of Proposed Exclusions to India's Patent Law in Light of India's Obligations under the TRIPs Agreement and Options for India, 8 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 41 (2008).

Sen, Rajarshi & Ramanujan, Adarsh. Pruning the Evergreen Tree or Tripping Up over TRIPs? - Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. IIC - Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law. 2010;41(2):170-186.

Sidharta, Bernard. A. Refleksi Tentang Struktur Ilmu Hukum: Sebuah Penelitian Tentang Fondasi Kefilsafatan Dan Sifat Keilmuan Ilmu Hukum Sebagai Landasan Pembangunan Ilmu Hukum Nasional Indonesia. Bandung: Mandar Maju; 2000.

Stiglitz, Joseph. E, & Jayadev, Arjun. India’s Patently Wise Decision. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-impact-of-the-indian-supreme-court-s-patent-decision-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-and-arjun-jayadev?barrier=accesspaylog. Published 2013. Accessed October 19, 2021.

The House of Representatives of the Republic Indonesia. Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 14 2001 Regarding Patents. Indonesia; 1997:1-28.

Tumang, Yurina. N. Dampak Paten terhadap Tingkat Rata Rata Harga Obat Esensial Produksi Perusahaan Farmasi Uni Eropa (UE-15) di Indonesia 1997-2003. J Kaji Wil Eropa. 2006;11(1):57-71.

UNCTAD-ICTSD. Patents: Subject Matter and Patentability Requirements. In: Resource Book on TRIPS and Development. ; 2010:351-367. DOI:10.1017/cbo9780511511363.019.

Utomo, Tomi. S. The Pharmaceutical Patent Protection Impact on Indonesia Drugs Price. Mimb Huk. 2009;21(3):426-441. doi:10.20303/jmh.v21i3.311.

VoA. Keputusan MA India soal Paten Bisa Dorong Obat Murah. https://www.voaindonesia.com/a/keputusan-ma-india-bisa-dorong-obat-murah/1632920.html. Published 2013. Accessed October 18, 2021.

Ward, Chris. India: The Cost of Weakening IPR. Patents Focus Is Indian Pharma Doomed. 2013;(May):6. http://images2.advanstar.com/PixelMags/pharma-exec-global/pdf/2013-05.pdf.

Downloads

Published

2024-03-30

How to Cite

Hendrix, T., & Wijaya Holman, A. (2024). Patentability of Patent Evergreening in the Pharmaceutical Sector: Novartis AG versus The Union of India. ADLIYA: Jurnal Hukum Dan Kemanusiaan, 18(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.15575/adliya.v18i1.27010

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 1 (2024): ADLIYA: Jurnal Hukum dan Kemanusiaan

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Angga Wijaya Holman Fasa, Tommy Hendrix

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in ADLIYA: Jurnal Hukum dan Kemanusiaan agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).