Question

In August 2007, Chennai High Court passed a landmark judgment that may have far reaching consequences on pharmaceuticals industry, dismissing a writ petition filed by

• A. Ranbaxy
• B. Sandoz
• C. Novartis
• D. Glaxo

Hint:

Think of the Swiss drugmaker that fought, and lost, a court battle over patent rights for its cancer drug Glivec in India.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question tests knowledge of a landmark 2007 Indian patent law case concerning pharmaceutical companies and generic medicine access.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
Identify the pharmaceutical multinational that specifically fought against Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act in court over patent rights for a well-known cancer drug, and match it to the company named among the options.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Section 3(d) of India's Patents Act, added in 2005, was designed to prevent "evergreening", where companies try to extend patent protection by making small, non-innovative tweaks to existing drugs. Novartis wanted an Indian patent for Glivec, its brand name for imatinib mesylate, a drug used to treat certain types of cancer, but Indian authorities denied the patent under Section 3(d) because the drug was seen as a modified version of an already known compound. Novartis then filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court (based in Chennai) arguing that Section 3(d) was unconstitutional and violated global trade obligations under TRIPs. In August 2007, the court dismissed the petition, which meant Section 3(d) stood, and Indian generic manufacturers could continue producing affordable versions of many medicines, including cancer drugs. The other companies listed, Ranbaxy, Sandoz, and Glaxo, were not the petitioners in this specific writ case.

Step 4: Final Answer:
The company whose writ petition was dismissed by the Chennai High Court in August 2007 is Novartis, option (C).