Scribd
Upload
9 views1 page

Patent Law: Novartis Case Impact

This document analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Novartis v. Union of India, highlighting the balance between patent law and public interest in pharmaceuticals. The ruling emphasized Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which prevents the patenting of minor modifications, thereby promoting access to essential medicines. Ultimately, the decision reinforced India's commitment to affordable healthcare and its position in the global access-to-medicines debate.

Uploaded by

drishtimandrekar3
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views1 page

Patent Law: Novartis Case Impact

This document analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Novartis v. Union of India, highlighting the balance between patent law and public interest in pharmaceuticals. The ruling emphasized Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which prevents the patenting of minor modifications, thereby promoting access to essential medicines. Ultimately, the decision reinforced India's commitment to affordable healthcare and its position in the global access-to-medicines debate.

Uploaded by

drishtimandrekar3
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Patent Law and Innovation: Analyzing Novartis v. Union of India

Patent Law and Innovation: Analyzing Novartis v. Union of India

Abstract:

Patent law balances innovation and public interest. This paper explores the Supreme Court's

decision in Novartis v. Union of India (2013) and its impact on pharmaceutical patents in India.

Introduction:

Patents incentivize innovation but can restrict access to essential medicines. Section 3(d) of the

Indian Patents Act prevents evergreening of patents.

Case Analysis:

1. Novartis sought a patent for Glivec, arguing it was a novel invention.

2. The Supreme Court ruled that the drug did not meet the enhanced efficacy requirement.

Legal Principles:

1. Section 3(d) restricts patenting of minor modifications.

2. The judgment upheld India's commitment to affordable healthcare.

Impact and Conclusion:

The ruling prevented monopolization and affirmed India's role in the global access-to-medicines

debate.

You might also like