TECHRIGHTS typically focuses on software patents in India when it speaks about India, but it also commends India for adjusting/tuning patent scope based on the interests of the Indian population, not some foreign monopolists. This is why patents on medicine in India (or scarcity thereof) are often cited here.
On 20 December 2016, Justice RK Gauba of the Delhi High Court heard an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH in a suit concerning IN225529 (3275/DEL/1998) against Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Bayer asserted that the patent covered vardenafil, a drug used to treat erectile dysfunction, and that Ajanta was manufacturing and selling the drug under its brand Valif.
The German pharmaceutical maker had sought - and in December last year received - an injunction stopping Ajanta Pharma from manufacturing or selling its product Valif, which Bayer says infringes its patents on a compound called vardenafil. According to Balaji Subramanian over at SpicyIP, the case looks pretty cut and dry: “As far as the Indian market is concerned, it seems fairly clear that Bayer has exclusive rights to manufacture and market the drug.” But on 29th January, the Delhi High Court amended that injunction so that Ajanta is only prevented from selling and distributing the drug in India itself. The court ordered the Indian company to keep accounts of its overseas sales for potential royalty payments, but it can carry on its business otherwise. Ajanta’s successful argument was based on the fact that Bayer was not “working” the patents in India.
Resistance to high prices for hepatitis C drugs is ongoing as five new challenges against patents have been filed in India and Argentina, according to sources. Those challenges aim at allowing the production and distribution of affordable generic versions of new hepatitis C medicines (direct-acting antivirals).