{"id":485,"date":"2014-03-31T15:42:25","date_gmt":"2014-03-31T10:12:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/?p=485"},"modified":"2016-09-28T15:48:34","modified_gmt":"2016-09-28T10:18:34","slug":"enforcing-pharmaceutical-patents-in-india-a-case-study-of-the-sitagliptin-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/enforcing-pharmaceutical-patents-in-india-a-case-study-of-the-sitagliptin-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Enforcing Pharmaceutical Patents in India: A Case Study of the Sitagliptin Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>April 2014 marks the first anniversary of the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the Novartis case, wherein the decision of the Indian Patent Office refusing grant of a patent to Novartis for its famous anti-cancer drug Gleevec (sometimes known as Glivec) was upheld. <\/em><\/p>\n<p>This judgment had caused a furore in the media with the big pharmaceutical companies criticizing the judgment as &#8220;a stunning defeat for intellectual property rights&#8221; (as in an April 2013 Time magazine story) and public-health activists hailing the decision as &#8220;a win for patients seeking cheaper treatment&#8221; in the same story.<\/p>\n<p>However, is the future of pharmaceutical patent law in India as bleak as it was painted to be? It appears not. Indian courts, specifically the Delhi High Court, have recently given forward-looking decisions in patent \u00adrelated matters.<\/p>\n<p><em>Authored by Pravin Anand and Tusha Malhotra.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>This article was published in Asia IP March 2014.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.asiaiplaw.com\/article\/41\/1789\/\" target=\"_blank\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>April 2014 marks the first anniversary of the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the Novartis case, wherein the decision of the Indian Patent Office refusing grant of a patent to Novartis for its famous anti-cancer drug Gleevec (sometimes known as Glivec) was upheld. This judgment had caused a furore in the media with [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[44,57,62],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=485"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":489,"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485\/revisions\/489"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.anandandanand.com\/oldupdates\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}