- Biological Inventions
- Brand Valuation
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Digital Right Management
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- Intellectual Property
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB Decisions
- Legal Issues
- News & Updates
- Patent Commercialisation
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Opposition
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Section 3(D)
- Trademark Litigation
In a major update for the patent circle (and of course Pharma industry), reportedly, Lee Pharma, a Hyderabad based Indian pharma company, which had filed a Compulsory Licensing (CL) Application on June 29, 2015 in India, against one of the patented drug Saxagliptin of AstraZeneca (used for treating Diabetes Mellitus), has failed to make out prima facie case for the same. Cognizance of the same has already been taken by Economic times and SpicyIP. This is the second blog written on the CL filed by Lee Pharma by IIPRD, earlier blog which discusses patent details, grounds of application can be accessed directly by clicking here.
This development has to be recognised as a major one because application by Lee Pharma is the third instance of applying for Compulsory Licensing in India and of earlier two, one was accepted and other was rejected. Of course, this development is also important when Pharma and Patent world wants to see how India is responding to US pressure on amending the patent laws.
It is noteworthy that Controller has not refused CL application for Lee Pharma, rather he has only notified Lee Pharma that it has not made out the prima facie case for the order under section 84. Controller was required to do so by Rule 97 (1). Further according to the rule 97 (1), Lee pharma has one month from the date of notification to request for the hearing, if it wants to proceed with the application and if request for hearing is not made, controller shall refuse the application. According to Rule 97 (2), if request for hearing is made within 1 month from the relevant notification, the Controller shall, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, determine whether the application may be proceeded with or whether it shall be refused.
Though, Economic times claims to have seen the copy of notification given to Lee Pharma by the controller, and also claims that controller has found Lee Pharma’s proposed selling price several times the import cost and only marginally below that of AstraZeneca and controller has also stated that manufacture in India is not a necessary precondition to establish working in India according to the relevant section. It is expected that Lee Pharma will likely exercise the provision for hearing available to it.
So here we are, all eyes on you now, Lee Pharma, the clock is already ticking.
Once the final decision regarding CL application is issued and made public, we will be back here for detailed discussion on the same, as this is something we just can’t afford to miss, right?
About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org