Evergreening patents: The Indian Supreme Court rejects patenting of incremental improvements
On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court in India handed down its decision to dismiss Swiss drug maker Novartis AG's attempt to win patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that incremental improvements or modifications to an existing drug are not patentable under Indiaâ€™s patent laws. While the ruling may have allowed India to maintain its ability to manufacture generic drugs, the ruling has increased the challenges that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies face in obtaining patent protection in India. In the long term, these challenges may prove to have far greater implications for the biotechnology industry that go beyond merely the patentability of one drug product. In view of this recent decision, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are undoubtedly re-evaluating their foreign patent strategies.
Unless specified by prior arrangement, the author agrees to the following terms and assurances:
- For myself and on behalf of the other authors listed on this work, I assign to thinkBiotech LLC the copyright* in the contribution for the full term throughout the world.
- I/we further give to the following assurances
- I am the sole author of the contribution, or, if not, I have the written authority of the other authors to transfer the copyright* to thinkBiotech LLC and give these warranties;
- I and (where appropriate) the other authors are entitled to transfer the copyright to thinkBiotech LLC and no one else would be entitled to prevent us from publishing the contribution;
- To the best of my/our knowledge, all the facts in the contribution are true and accurate;
- The content of the contribution is entirely original to me (and where appropriate to the other authors) or, if not, the written permission of the owner of the copyright in any material copied from elsewhere has been obtained for all media (all such permissions to be attached to the contribution as supplementary files);
- Nothing in the contribution is obscene or libellous;
- Nothing in the contribution infringes any duty of confidentiality which I/or the other authors may owe to anyone else.
- I and/or the other authors have obtained the appropriate clearances from my/our employer(s) or other concerned institution(s).