Ramesh Swaminathan
CFO, Lupin Limited
CFO, Lupin Limited
"In view of this judgment and various patent challenges that have happened over a period of time in the case of Roche, Bayer and other multinational companies,this is a huge setback to the innovation and research ecosystems of the country.
We would be perceived by global firms as a country not recognising, respecting and rewarding research and innovation.
I think the government and the industry need to introspect and have to find an amicable solution, both in terms of having clarity on patentability and pricing of patented products.
The pricing policy on patent products may help in reducing litigation on the affordability and compulsory licensing front. We need to also have more clarity on rule 3(d) to enable genuine incremental innovation to be patented, as is being done globally in most countries. This one judgment might have also larger consequences on the global investments particularly in the area of manufacturing, clinical research, BPO, etc. This is a great concern as it might deprive young scientists and skilled people of working on research and innovation projects"
Kewal Handa
Promoter & director, Salus Lifecare and former MD of Pfizer in India
Promoter & director, Salus Lifecare and former MD of Pfizer in India
"It is a historic judgement which reaffirms the position of the Indian law and in particular, provisions of Section 3(d) which mandates the need for a substantive innovation while deciding on a case for grant of a fresh patent...Indian Patent Law is fully in conformity with our international obligations under the TRIPS agreement"
Anand Sharma
Commerce Minister
Commerce Minister