Hindu : 3 Apr - Editorial : How original is an invention to deserve a patent ?

This article is an extensive summary of what all went in mind of those sitting in supreme court in giving a stubbon judgement that Novartis's drug doesn't deserve a patent. Article starts with a wonderful statement that Pharma companies should concentrate more on making incurable diseases curable with at a substantial cost instead of trying to make thier so called 'inventions' evergreen by patenting. 

Article then takes us through a rigorous chronological journey to give us an insight on how this patent battle started with a cancer drug which was invented by Zimmerman. It was already patented in 1996 first in U.S and then in U.K which was later known as Zimmerman Patent. Article then explains how a re modified drug was invented by Novartis and how since then the Pharma company had been trying to patent it so that the new formula doesn't become generic. At this genric article brings out the famous point in Patent Rule which is article 3d which states that any drug which does not have any considerable efficacy on its predecessor cannot be considered as a new invention and under this rule cannot be given a patent.

Article thus by all means show how a big pharma had been insisting to prove that their modified drug had an improved result in curing the illness but that was a sensibly rejected by Supreme court that this drug cannot be considered as a new invention but ofcourse a better drug over the original one and that it uviolates article 3d. Moreover Supreme court also adivces the pharma companies to invest more time and money in coming up with new inventions which can cure chronic diseases instead of on costly lawyers who try to argue that modified drugs should be considered as new inventions. Though this verdict could make big pharma companies to cease their investment for R&D in India and migrate to China, Supreme courts supports its judgement with a ligical point that drugs which can cure diseases as chronic as cancer should be reachable to a common man even if it means to go against giant like Novartis who plan to stop that in the name of evergreen Patent.

                                                                                                                     - Vamshi Regalla