Patent row: Ranbaxy takes on IPA

Ranbaxy Laboratories, the biggest member of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), has come out in the open against the alliance's stand on patent issues.

The company has come out against the IPA for questioning the legal basis of former CSIR chief RA Mashelkar's claim that limitation of patentability to "new chemical entities (NCE)" is beyond the scope of TRIPS flexibilities approved by the World Trade Organisation. Mashlekar was the head of the expert group on patent laws.

Though the IPA maintained that the decision was "unanimous," a Ranbaxy spokesperson said the company had opposed the IPA stand on all occasions.

Ramesh Adige, executive director, corporate affairs, informed Business Standard: "Ranbaxy is of the strong opinion that incremental inventions should be patented. However, we oppose patenting frivolous inventions. As Mashelkar rightly pointed out, rules should be very clear to see that frivolous patents are not granted. Rules should be very clear, and guidelines should be framed so that patent officials can differentiate between frivolous patents and incremental patents. The three-way test for patentability should be novelty, innovation and commercial utility,"

DG Shah, secretary general, IPA had a different view. "Most of the report is devoted to positions of various interest groups but very little is devoted to providing an insight into what made the technical group take the view that to limit patentability to NCEs is not compatible with the TRIPS Agreement."

Ranbaxy had made a separate representation before the Mashelkar panel which was not in tune with the IPA view.

The annexure to Mashelkar committee report states Ranbaxy position: "We are of the opinion that incremental innovations in terms of developing new forms, new derivatives and new delivery systems of existing drug should be granted patent protection provided they are new, involve an inventive step and have commercial utility. Restricting patentability to NCEs may appear to be an attractive solution in the short "�term to companies with a 'reverse "�engineering' mindset, but will not benefit hundreds of scientists working in our public & private R&D centres. Restriction of patentability to NCEs alone is likely to benefit only MNCs which have the resources and the experience to develop NCEs. Indian companies that have far less resources are better placed to benefit from early commercialisation of incremental innovations. A prerequisite to successful licensing deal for such products is the protection of the IP in the form of a patent, preferably in the country itself since products are being manufactured here."