Swiss government not to take Novartis case to WTO

The Swiss government indicated that it was unlikely to take Novartis AG's challenge to India's intellectual property rights regime to the World Trade Organization's disputes settlement body, local papers reported. The Madras High Court Monday dismissed a petition filed by the Swiss pharma major citing provisions of the Indian Patents Act and claiming that it was non-compliant with the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement.

Doris Leuthard, Swiss Federal Councillor to the Department of Economic Affairs, told Indian media that: 'The Swiss government never gets involved in any any judicial pronouncement of other countries. We accept any case which is settled in India. It is normal litigation in which one party happens to be a company while other is a country.

'We must have a reliable TRIPS system, and the one in India is good enough,' the Business Standard quoted her as saying.

Leuthard was in India to sign a memorandum on closer cooperation for the protection and promotion of intellectual property rights with Kamal Nath, India's Minister for Commerce and Industry.

The Hindustan Times quoted Nath as saying: 'Our (Indian) patent laws are WTO compliant. It is only one company that has raised its voice. In the last two years, since Indian patent laws became WTO compliant, no one has ever made any complaint.'

The complaint centres on Novartis (nyse: NVS - news - people )' anti-cancer drug Glivec, which was denied patent protection at the Madras High Court on Monday.

Novartis had sought a patent for Glivec in India, challenging the Indian patent law which -- in its current form -- does not protect incremental innovation.

India has a unique provision in its patent law -- Section 3(d) -- which excludes 'incremental innovation' from patent protection and denies patents for modifications to known medicines.

Indian law does not grant patents for modifications to old medicines, but only to properly innovative drugs developed after 1995.

The WTO recently urged India to improve its intellectual property system during Trade Policy Review.

Novartis had reiterated on Monday that it thinks Section 3(d) will have long-term negative consequences for research and development into better medicines for patients in India.

'Medical progress occurs through incremental innovation. If Indian patent law does not recognise these important advances, patients will be denied new and better medicines,' said Paul Herrling, head of corporate research at Novartis, on Monday.