INTRODUCTION

India has emerged in the run of international debate regarding intellectual rights and public health, and the worst role in the pharmaceutical sector is well played by India. Judicial disputes over drug patents can speak for themselves and balance complexity between innovation promotion and access to life-saving drugs. Although pharmaceutical companies tout robust patent protections to allow research and development, India tends to strike a balance between intellectual property protections and the need for public health on most approaches. This examination of the critical cases, relevant regulatory frameworks, and broader implications of this approach examines how India's approach might serve as an example for other developing countries facing similar challenges.

Main blog

India has become the battlefield for the last decade or so on pharmaceutical patents across the globe, with public health and rights in intellectual property coming under stringent scrutiny. Being the largest supplier of generics on earth, India's laws were under the scanner for the ease of striking a balance between protection afforded by a patent and the need for affordable healthcare. The story dates back to 1995 when the TRIPS Agreement was signed that bound member states of the WTO, including India, to introduce product patents for drugs. Although an instrument of innovation protection, the implications of TRIPS concerning drug pricing and access to lifesaving drugs have created substantial challenges for many developing nations.

The TRIPS Agreement and India's Patent Revisions

The regime of TRIPS in the past had crafted the Patents Act of 1970 for India painstakingly so that only process patents could be available; this regulatory environment helped keep the cost of the medicines lower. However, after entering the WTO, India amended its patent law in 2005 to bring it into conformity with TRIPS. In fact, it has indeed introduced product patents, but simultaneously included a number of provisos as well, like Section 3 (d), which excludes trivial variations that do not present improved efficacy from being patented. It would help to advance public health interests by ending the practice of what is known as "evergreening," referring to the extent that companies make incremental updates to extend the lifespan of old drugs' patents.

Major Cases: Novartis and Bayer

India's determination in striking a balance between intellectual property and public health was put to its strict test in one of the most high-profile court battles, including the case of Novartis AG v. Union of India in 2013. An example would include when Novartis sought a patent over a modified version of the cancer drug Glivec. The Supreme Court of India refused to approve the patent under Section 3(d), terming the alteration as adding nothing substantially new to the medicine's ability. The judgment was welcomed by health activists and ensured continued access to low-priced medicines but was widely condemned by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims that such judgments have a generally discouraging effect on pharmaceutical innovation.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Another salient example was Bayer's drug, Nexavar. The Indian government issued a compulsory license to let a generic producer manufacture a cheaper version, as it required the drug for national health compulsions. This proved that India would not hesitate to utilize TRIPS flexibilities in pursuit of public health, reminding the government of its commitment to ensure availability of essential drugs during public health emergencies

Public Health vs. Pharmaceutical Innovation

The tension between public health and intellectual property rights in India is extremely strong. Pharmaceutical industry players claim that strong patent protection is a necessary condition for funding the highly costly process of developing new drugs. Public health advocates retort that the monopolistic pricing of life-saving medications excludes substantial populations in need, largely in economically disadvantaged areas. India's approach that permits compulsory licensing and restrains evergreening has been of concern to pharmaceutical entities but has been celebrated as an example of balancing innovation with public health interests.

Broader Impact on Access to Medicines

India's pharmaceutical intellectual property right approach extends from its national borders and, by doing so, heavily influences dialogues across the globe on intellectual property legislation and public health. As other developing countries observe India's success in upholding the TRIPS Agreement with considerable emphasis on public health, there is every chance that the issue will be further applied in similar protective measures in places where access to cheap medication can make a difference. The Indian paradigm shows that it is possible for countries to comply fully with their international intellectual property obligations without sacrificing access to necessary medicines, which might set a new international policy about medicine access afterward.

Conclusion

The Indian patent controversy highlights delicate balance between promoting pharmaceutical innovation and assuring the public has affordable access to medicines. India has made a unique stand as a result of landmark judicial decisions and legislative actions that balance public health principles in the context of international intellectual property law. This approach adopted by India can serve as a template for balancing the competing interests of public health with respect to intellectual property protection, throwing light on a time of skyrocketing drug prices and discovery.

Author : Rashmi Rana, in case of any query, contact us at Global Patent Filing or write back us via email at support@globalpatentfiling.com.

REFERENCES

M.Z.M., Nomani., Alaa, K., K., Alhalboosi., Mohammad, Rauf. (2020). 3. Legal & Intellectual Property Dimension of Health & Access to Medicines in India. Journal of Forensic Medicine, Available from: 10.37506/IJFMT.V14I1.25.

Germán, Velásquez. (2022). 4. Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines and Vaccines. Springer Briefs in public health, Available from: 10.1007/978-3-030-89125-1_5.

حمید, عزیزی, مرادپور., محمدرضا, ایراننژاد. (2020). 5. Challenges between Access to Medicine and Pharmaceutical Patents. doi: 10.29252/JILR.1.4.61

Iryna, Zanevska. (2022). 10. Medicines and their legal protection as objects of intellectual property law. Aktualʹnì problemi pravoznavstva, doi: 10.35774/app2022.02.103.

Jacqui, Wise. (2014). 11. Patent wars: affordable medicines versus intellectual property rights. BMJ, doi: 10.1136/BMJ.G1533.

Gopakumar, G, Nair., Andreya, Fernandes. (2014). 17. Patent Policies and Provisions Relating to Pharmaceuticals in India.

Manthan, D, Janodia., Sureshwar, Pandey., J., Venkara, Rao., D, Sreedhar., Virendra, S, Ligade., Nayanabhirama, Udupa. (2007). 65. Patents Regime In India: Issues, Challenges And Opportunities In Pharmaceutical Sector. The internet journal of the third world medicine,