Monday's Indian Supreme Court ruling against Swiss drug manufacturer Novartis represents a key landmark in an international tussle over trade and intellectual property that pitches developing countries against multinationals and particularly the US. The decision not to grant a patent on a valuable cancer drug, Glivec – effective against myeloid leukaemia – will mean many thousands of patients in India and the developing world being able to access generic versions of this drug, and perhaps others, at reduced prices – Glivec costs €2,000 a month, with Indian generic copies, around €135.
The case centered on changes to Indian patent law which grants patents and legal protection on updates of existing drugs only if manufacturers can show real improvements in efficacy. In the US drug companies have used minor changes in drugs, even simple dosage changes, successfully to extend patents' 20-year lifespans and so their right to continue charging the highest prices in the world, a process known as “evergreening”. The companies argue that such protection is essential to recoup investment in speculative research which will otherwise dry up.
India is the world's largest supplier of generic medicines – it exports some $10 billion-worth yearly – and is the main target of US attempts to tighten intellectual copyright provisions in trade deals worldwide. But the latter has also been facing other challenges to its patent protections in countries like Argentina, the Philippines, Thailand and Brazil. In talks on a new Pacific Rim trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the issue is featuring strongly.
Previous battles by development activists over access to anti-HIV drugs have seen drug companies eventually retreating to open up affordable access to their products – not least because the alternative was patients in the developing world being simply priced to death out of the market. India's Supreme Court has struck an important blow for a balanced reconciliation of the right to profit and to life.