Novartis Vs. India = another legal loss for Novartis

[Anonymous]

Which begs the question why do the executive morons continue to litigate/fight litigation ?
Ego ? Hubris ? Ignorance ? All the above ?
Novartis loses what like 90% of it's (meaningful) cases ? Gender, OT , Off Label , Product liability , patent protection .....
Which indicates clearly they are on the WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW .....CONSTANTLY & consistently !
Save your legal expenses & settle as it is painfully obvious the organization lost its moral & legal compass a decade + ago
& please stop embarrassing yourselves , Jimenez & the rest of the suits should be fired for
such dismal unethical & illegal performance .

 

[Anonymous]

They should settle most suits but they don't. Look at the annual reports they spend hundreds of millions each year for legal expenses and settlements.

 

[Anonymous]

The India ruling (another first in class for No-Fartus) begs to question the R.O.W.
(rest of world) strategy put into place by NVS at the highest levels.

After the action taken by India, can China, Brazil and other developing markets be far behind. It seems that they will not prove to be the vast piggy bank that Jose Jimenez envisioned

 

[Pragmatic Answers]

SHE SPEAKS THE TRUTH !

Novartis verdict will encourage genuine innovation: Prathiba M Singh Health, Updated Apr 03, 2013 at 06:50pm IST

Q. Madam, In simple language what is the significance of this judgement.

A. The significance of this judgement is that it will encourage genuine innovation and less efforts would be spent on applying for variation patents. My experience in patent litigation shows that in almost every case there are multiple patents. This judgement will reduce that.

Q. Will the decision not adversely affect the R&D projects in India? No doubt, Novartis can't claim process patent, but it certainly had a right to be considered for product patent. Your views.. Asked by: Alok Madan

A. Innovators will continue to get product patents. This judgement deals with a situation where the patent being sought is for "new form of a known substance". This judgement does not apply where completely new inventions are the subject matter of the patent application.

Q. Is the ruling applicable only to Pharmaceutical patents or can it apply to all patents. Asked by: Samir Patil

A. It will primarily apply to pharmaceutical patents. But since it traces the history of patent law and also of Section 3(d) and being the first major judgement on the new Act by the Apex court, it carries tremendous weight.

Q. Does the ruling give clarity on what kind of change constitutes innovation which can be patented Asked by: Samir Patil

A. In the context of pharmaceutical substances which are new forms of known substances, those inventions which result in significant enhancement of therapeutic efficacy can be patented.

Q. In laymen terms,How do you see the aftermath of SC's decision affecting cancer patient in India. Will it be be costing less? Asked by: sumit

A. This particular product i.e., Imatinib Mesylate will cost less because the patent has been rejected and multiple companies are making it.