Union Govt denies violation of TRIPS agreement

Chennai, Feb 22 (UNI) Defending Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act, the Union Government today contended before Madras High Court, that it neither violated the TRIPS agreement nor provided unguided power to patent controllers to reject applications for patents on the grounds that they are not inventions.

When a batch of petitions filed by Novartis AG against the rejection of its patent application for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate came up for hearing before a Division Bench, comprising Justices R Balasubramanian and Prabha Sridevan, Additional solicitor general V T Gopalan said the provisions, whose constitutional validity had been challenged, was valid and could hardly be termed arbitrary.

He submitted that the section, taken along with the explanation given in the Act, fully complied with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as the trade agreement itself gave freedom to member-states to determine the appropriate method of implementating the provisions of the agreement within their own legal systems.

He discounted the theory advanced on behalf of Novartis that the legislation was targeted at it, as the company's name and the possiblity of evergreening (the practice of getting new patents on old substances by presenting minor variations or improvements as something new) figured in parliamentary debates before Section 3 (d) was introduced through an amendment. No mala fides can be attributed to Parliament, he added.

Referring to the Apex court judgement on this point, he said the legislature reflected the will of the people.

Referring to Article 7 and 8 of the TRIPS agreement, he pointed out that the accord itself permitted member-countries while formulating or amending their laws and regulations, to adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance.

Mr Gopalan was replying to lengthy submissions made by senior Counsel Soli Sorabjee and Shanthi Bhushan on behalf of Novartis last week.

As the arguments were inconclusive, the Bench adjourned the hearing to tomorrow.

UNI