10.08.2007
Indian Ruling against Pharmaceutical Giant a Victory for Global Public Health
LWF Leaders Hail Verdict on Novartis CaseGENEVA, 10 August 2007 (LWI) - Leaders of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) have welcomed statements of aid and advocacy agencies hailing the verdict by an Indian court against the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis, on Monday 6 August, as an important victory for global public health.
"The decision will protect India's special role as the world's leading provider of affordable medicines to the poor," says the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA), a Geneva-based coalition of faith-based groups advocating for increased access to effective prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS, in an August 6 joint statement with CARE International and Oxfam International. The agencies also welcomed an initial statement by Novartis on Monday that it is unlikely to appeal against the ruling.
A global campaign by civil society has seen nearly half a million people around the world calling for Novartis to drop its case. The EAA mobilized church leaders to join the campaign.
Ms Linda Hartke, coordinator of the EAA, of which the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) is a member said, "This is a victory for all those who believe people, not profits, must come first in public health."
LWF President Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in welcoming the High Court's decision, said, "Even more important than this decision on a particular case is the principle it sets-patents must be granted in a way that balances public health and real innovation."
LWF General Secretary Rev. Dr Ishmael Noko commented: "The bottom line for us is access to essential medicines for all-especially those living in poverty who are more vulnerable to disease and ill health. This ruling is one step towards affirming existing limitations on patent protection that will help keep many medicines affordable. But we need to go farther in developing alternatives to the current system for essential medicines."
According to an EAA press release: "Novartis had filed a petition with the high court challenging the constitutionality of Indian patent law after the Indian Patent Controller's Office had refused to grant a patent for its cancer medicine, Glivec. The Glivec application was rejected on the grounds that the medicine was simply a new form of an old medicine with a trivial change, something which cannot be patented under Indian law." In rejecting the Novartis challenge, the press release continues, the court had noted it had no jurisdiction to rule on the compliance of Indian law to the World Trade Organization's (WTO) intellectual property rules.
In their statement, the agencies said Novartis and the pharmaceutical industry had been given a clear message to respect developing countries' legal right to use the WTO TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property) safeguards to strike the right balance between protecting public health and intellectual property.
"The decision," the EAA press release says, "potentially could have affected the generic manufacture of thousands of other medicines in India." Known as the "pharmacy of the developing world," India supplies most of the world's affordable generics to developing countries where patented medicines are priced out of most people's reach. More than two-thirds of generic medicines exported from India are sold in developing countries at a fraction of the cost of patented brand medicines, explains the agencies' statement. "Novartis' legal challenge posed an enormous threat in developing countries to millions of people suffering from cancer, HIV and AIDS, diabetes and other diseases who are too poor to pay for expensive patented medicines."
In their statement, CARE International, Oxfam International, and the EAA called on Novartis to continue to take positive steps to promote access to medicines in developing countries, to promote research and development for neglected diseases and to strike an appropriate balance between protecting public health safeguards in developing countries and intellectual property rights. An appeal to the patent decision is still pending before India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board. (649 words)
If you want to edit this article yourself and adapt it to a given format, follow our editing information
