Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q10468174> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 69 of
69
with 100 triples per page.
- Q10468174 subject Q15264173.
- Q10468174 subject Q6407040.
- Q10468174 subject Q6995770.
- Q10468174 subject Q7444591.
- Q10468174 subject Q8203760.
- Q10468174 subject Q8545264.
- Q10468174 subject Q8760196.
- Q10468174 abstract "Template:Infobox court caseNovartis v. Union of India & Others is a landmark decision by a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of whether Novartis could patent Gleevec in India, and was the culmination of a seven-year-long litigation fought by Novartis. The Supreme Court upheld the Indian patent office's rejection of the patent application.The patent application at the center of the case was filed by Novartis in India in 1998, after India had agreed to enter the World Trade Organization and to abide by worldwide intellectual property standards under the TRIPS agreement. As part of this agreement, India made changes to its patent law; the biggest of which was that prior to these changes, patents on products were not allowed, while afterwards they were, albeit with restrictions. These changes came into effect in 2005, so Novartis' patent application waited in a "mailbox" with others until then, under procedures that India instituted to manage the transition. India also passed certain amendments to its patent law in 2005, just before the laws came into effect, which played a key role in the rejection of the patent application.The patent application claimed the final form of Gleevec (the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate). In 1993, during the time India did not allow patents on products, Novartis had patented imatinib, with salts vaguely specified, in many countries but could not patent it in India. The key differences between the two patent applications, were that the 1998 patent application specified the counterion (Gleevec is a specific salt - imatinib mesylate) while the 1993 patent application did not claim any specific salts nor did it mention mesylate, and the 1998 patent application specified the solid form of Gleevec - the way the individual molecules are packed together into a solid when the drug itself is manufactured (this is separate from processes by which the drug itself is formulated into pills or capsules) - while the 1993 patent application did not. The solid form of imatinib mesylate in Gleevec is beta crystalline.As provided under the TRIPS agreement, Novartis applied for Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for Gleevec from the Indian Patent Office and the EMR were granted in November 2003. Novartis made use of the EMR to obtain orders against some generic manufacturers who had already launched Gleevec in India. Novartis set the price of Gleevec at USD 2666 per patient per month; generic companies were selling their versions at USD 177 to 266 per patient per month. Novartis also initiated a program to assist patients who could not afford its version of the drug, concurrent with its product launch.When examination of Novartis' patent application began in 2005, it came under immediate attack from oppositions initiated by generic companies that were already selling Gleevec in India and by advocacy groups. The application was rejected by the patent office and by an appeal board. The key basis for the rejection was the part of Indian patent law that was created by amendment in 2005, describing the patentability of new uses for known drugs and modifications of known drugs. That section, Paragraph 3d, specified that such inventions are patentable only if "they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy." At one point, Novartis went to court to try to invalidate Paragraph 3d; it argued that the provision was unconstitutionally vague and that it violated TRIPS. Novartis lost that case and did not appeal. Novartis did appeal the rejection by the patent office to India's Supreme Court, which took the case.The Supreme Court case hinged on the interpretation of Paragraph 3d. The Supreme Court decided that the substance that Novartis sought to patent was indeed a modification of a known drug (the raw form of imatinib, which was publicly disclosed in the 1993 patent application and in scientific articles), that Novartis did not present evidence of a difference in therapeutic efficacy between the final form of Gleevec and the raw form of imatinib, and that therefore the patent application was properly rejected by the patent office and lower courts.Although the court ruled narrowly, and took care to note that the subject application was filed during a time of transition in Indian patent law, the decision generated widespread global news coverage and reignited debates on balancing public good with monopolistic pricing and innovation with affordability. Had Novartis won and gotten its patent issued, it could not have prevented generics companies in India from continuing to sell generic Gleevec, but it could have obligated them to pay a reasonable royalty under a grandfather clause included in India's patent law.".
- Q10468174 wikiPageExternalLink imgs1.aspx?filename=40212.
- Q10468174 wikiPageExternalLink qrydispfree.aspx?filename=11121.
- Q10468174 wikiPageExternalLink IPAB-Order-Dated-26-Jun-2009-in-Novartis-v-Union-of-India.
- Q10468174 wikiPageExternalLink statute-combined%20patents%20act%202005.pdf.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q103382.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q12139145.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q12370.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q1303850.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q131257.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q13564495.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q1437823.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q1455090.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q1459541.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q15264173.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q16731081.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q17050818.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q17082849.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q177094.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q180445.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q18119757.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q1840882.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q204711.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q213380.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q216678.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q2268418.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q2578692.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q280190.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q326097.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q331647.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q414168.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q43297.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q461809.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q477108.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q4781749.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q49330.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q502531.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q507154.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q5417260.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q6407040.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q6823678.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q6995770.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7098635.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7132151.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7444591.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7557777.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7598368.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7672669.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7817.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q7825.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q8203760.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q824258.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q844801.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q8545264.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q8760196.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q903441.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q903517.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q907364.
- Q10468174 wikiPageWikiLink Q912807.
- Q10468174 type Thing.
- Q10468174 comment "Template:Infobox court caseNovartis v. Union of India & Others is a landmark decision by a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of whether Novartis could patent Gleevec in India, and was the culmination of a seven-year-long litigation fought by Novartis.".
- Q10468174 label "Novartis v. Union of India & Others".