India revokes GSK cancer drug patent in latest Big Pharma blow

MUMBAI Fri Aug 2, 2013 5:55pm IST

1 of 3. The GlaxoSmithKline building is pictured in Hounslow, west London June 18, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Luke MacGregor/Files

Related Topics

Stocks

   

MUMBAI (Reuters) - India has revoked a patent granted to GlaxoSmithKline Plc(GSK.L) for breast cancer drug Tykerb, a decision that follows a landmark India court ruling disallowing patents for incremental innovations that was a blow to global pharmaceutical firms.

However, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) upheld a patent granted on the original compound, or active pharmaceutical ingredient, lapatinib, citing innovative merit.

As a result, a GSK spokesman said its medicine would remain subject to patent protection until 2019. The additional patent on the particular salt of lapatinib used in Tykerb, which has now been rejected, would have extended that protection to 2021.

India's Supreme Court in April rejected a patent for Novartis AG's (NOVN.VX) cancer drug Glivec, saying it was an amended version of a known molecule called imatinib, setting the precedent for more such cases in the country.

GSK had cut prices of Tykerb by about a third in India as part of a flexible pricing programme designed to make important drugs more affordable in certain emerging markets.

Western drugmakers who covet a bigger share of India's fast-growing $13 billion drugs market have been frustrated by a series of decisions on intellectual property and pricing.

Last year, India revoked patents granted to Pfizer Inc's (PFE.N) cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's (ROG.VX) hepatitis C drug Pegasys, and Merck & Co's (MRK.N) asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation. All were revoked on grounds that included lack of innovation.

Fresenius Kabi Oncology FRES.NS, the Indian unit of German healthcare group Fresenius SE (FREG.DE), had challenged patents granted for both the original molecule and its marketed salt version, saying both molecules lacked innovation.

"This decision is just like the landmark Glivec ruling. The IPAB has said that the salt version of lapatinib cannot hold a patent," said lawyer Dominic Alvares of S. Majumdar & Co, which represented Fresenius Kabi in the case.

The IPAB rulings for both the patent disputes were uploaded on its website late on Thursday.

Shares in GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GLAX.NS), the UK company's Indian unit, fell 2.8 percent on Friday.

The company can make an appeal on the decision to India's Supreme Court.

"We are studying the IPAB's decision but maintain our belief in the inventiveness of the lapatinib ditosylate salt and will consider the possibility of taking further steps before the appropriate authorities to validate this," the Indian GSK unit said in an email to Reuters on Friday.

"We are pleased that the IPAB in India has upheld our basic patent for the lapatinib compound, the active ingredient in Tykerb." GSK said. The patent expires in January 2019.

A strip of 10 Tykerb tablets costs about 4,160 rupees in India and a patient is expected to take five tablets a day for 21 days if the cancer is in an advanced stage.

Western pharmaceutical companies, looking to emerging markets such as India to help drive growth, have run into various obstacles recently, ranging from corruption and pricing probes in China to stock management problems in Brazil.

(Additional reporting by Ben Hirschler in London; Editing by Louise Ireland)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Kream wrote:
Isn’t it odd that there’s not a single quote or item of reportage from organisations or people that support the ruling or would benefit from the ruling?

Aug 02, 2013 8:00pm IST  --  Report as abuse
Vishals wrote:
This is not correct to say that Indian Courts does not allow incremental inventions. Indeed there are other provisions for incremental inventions e.g. Patent of Addition is there under the Act.
Also,Supreme court in Novartis made it clear that the decision or S3(d) is not a bar to incremental inventions.

Aug 05, 2013 2:18pm IST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

  • Most Popular
  • Most Shared

REUTERS SHOWCASE

School Shooting

School Shooting

Two killed, four wounded in Washington state school shooting.  Full Article 

Sundar Pichai Elevated

Sundar Pichai Elevated

Google's Pichai to oversee major products and services.  Full Article 

Need For Reforms

Need For Reforms

Euro zone risks "relapse into recession" without structural reforms - Draghi.  Full Article 

Diwali Sales

Diwali Sales

Gold sales jump about 20 pct for Diwali - trade body  Full Article 

World Bank Rival

World Bank Rival

Three major nations absent as China launches W.Bank rival in Asia  Full Article 

Wal-Mart India

Wal-Mart India

Murali Lanka appointed as Wal-Mart India operations chief  Full Article 

Health Of Lenders

Health Of Lenders

25 European banks set to fail health checks - sources.  Full Article 

Special Report

Special Report

Why Madrid's poor fear Goldman Sachs and Blackstone  Full Article 

India Insight

India Insight

Kalki Koechlin on her role as a disabled girl in “Margarita, With a Straw”  Full Article 

Reuters India Mobile

Reuters India Mobile

Get the latest news on the go. Visit Reuters India on your mobile device.  Full Coverage