Why Novartis case will help innovation

On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to deny patent protection to Novartis’s application covering a beta crystalline form of imatinib —the medicine Novartis brands as Glivec, and which is very effective against the form of cancer known as chronic myeloid leukaemia. Thirdly, the Supreme Court judgment effectively recast Indian patent law as being nuanced and original in its meshing of domestic political economy concerns with the integrated global economy it participates in. A British Medical Journal report from 2012 succinctly summarises the global research situation for new medicines: “This is the real innovation crisis: pharmaceutical research and development turns out mostly minor variations on existing drugs, and most new drugs are not superior on clinical measures.” If the patent regimes of developed countries are dominated by minor patents, many or most of which have no demonstrable innovation to show, why are they so avidly pursued by global pharmaceutical companies? The genius of the Supreme Court judgment on Novartis’s patent application lies in restoring the connection between patents and innovation by upholding and legitimising a regime with a higher threshold of inventiveness. The symbolic opportunity presented by the Supreme Court’s backing of Indian patent law, however, is a real threat — and pharma CEOs in New York, London and Basel get it.