hide message

Welcome to the Resource Centre

We make it our mission to work with advocates in civil society, business and government to address inequalities of power, seek remedy for abuse, and ensure protection of people and planet.

Both companies and impacted communities thank us for the resources and support we provide.

This is only possible because of your support. Please make a donation today.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

India: Analyst says pharmaceutical firms must make drugs affordable to be competitive - following High Court ruling against Bayer

Get RSS feed of these results

All components of this story

Article
20 August 2009

Big Pharma must mend its ways to succeed in India

Author: Pillman, DNA [India]

Close on the heels of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board halting Novartis' Glivec patent application...on account of its high prices, the Delhi High Court has dealt a body blow to German drug maker Bayer's ambitions to monopolise the Indian market with its kidney cancer drug Nexavar...There is every possibility that multinational companies will not hurry into launching new products in India and blame it on an ambiguous patenting system...The better and more reasonable option could be to introduce products in India at an Indian pricing. That way, the vast population here can afford drugs and multinational companies can make volume-based profits rather than value-based profits. [also refers to Cipla]

Read the full post here

Article
18 August 2009

Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India [Delhi High Court Judgment]

Author: High Court of Delhi

Bayer states that Cipla’s generic version of Sorafanib, which, it is contended, is sold under the brand name “Soranib” would amount to a “spurious drug”. If Bayer’s contention were to prevail, every generic drug would ipso facto amount to a “spurious drug”, since they are deemed substitutes of originator (patented) drugs. Such interpretation is facially untenable and contrary to the intent of the Drugs Act...the present litigation was what may be characterized as a speculative foray; an attempt to “tweak” public policies through court mandated regimes. The petitioner, doubtless is possessed of vast resources and can engage in such pursuits. Yet, often, these attempts...achieve short term goals of keeping out competitors, through interim orders. That short term objective has been achieved, and the petitioner has successfully stalled an independent examination of Cipla’s application. Even though the writ petition cannot succeed, it would be a travesty of justice if the court does not direct realization of realistic costs, in this case.

Read the full post here