The Novartis Case

What the Swiss drug giant is really doing is ‘evergreening’

Novartis International AG recently lost its case to patent an updated version of its cancer drug, Glivec, in the Indian Supreme Court. It was only in 2005 that India amended its laws to allow patent protection for chemical compounds. Novartis almost immediately applied for a patent—in 2006.

Since Glivec was already available in the market, the company applied for a patent on a slightly altered version of the drug. According to Novartis, this version was a new innovation as it allowed patients to absorb the drug more easily. However, the application was rejected. The Indian patent office’s argument was that the altered version’s active ingredient was still imatinib mesylate, which was already a known compound. The firm filed a case challenging this decision in the Supreme Court in 2009. The court’s ruling was that the patent application fails both the tests of ‘invention and patentability’.

Glivec costs about $2,600 per month. Generic versions of it in the Indian market are available for about $175. While Novartis claims that the ruling discourages innovative drug discovery, which is essential in advancing medical science, what the Swiss drug giant is really doing is ‘evergreening’, a practice where pharmaceutical companies try to maintain their patents on drugs by simply making minor changes in them. Patents normally last for 20 years. And according to a BBC report, there are drugs with combined annual sales of an estimated $ 150 billion that are set to go off-patent by 2015. Had the ruling gone in favour of Novartis AG, the ploy of ‘evergreening’ would get a boost in the country, and many important drugs would be unaffordable for lower-income patients.

cancerGlivecNovartispatent