Challenges to India's pharmaceutical patent laws

Science

Volumn 337, Issue 6093, 2012, Pages 414-415

  Sampat, Bhaven N ^a   Shadlen, Kenneth C ^b   Amin, Tahir M ^c,d  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c Initiative for Medicines Access and Knowledge   (United States)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMATINIB; GENERIC DRUG; PIPERAZINE DERIVATIVE; PYRIMIDINE DERIVATIVE;

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; DEVELOPING WORLD; DRUG; INDUSTRIAL REGULATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; LEGAL SYSTEM; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; PUBLIC ACCESS;

CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; COURT; DRUG COST; DRUG LEGISLATION; EVERGREEN; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INDIA; LIFE CYCLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT;

INDIA;

DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUGS, GENERIC; INDIA; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGISLATION, DRUG; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PIPERAZINES; PYRIMIDINES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84864354682     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1224892     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Special 301 Submission (PhRMA, Washington, DC, 2010).
2. U.S.-India Business Council, The Value of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation: Benefits for Indian Patients and Indian Businesses (USIBC, Washington, DC, 2009).
3. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Special 301 Reports, 2010-2012 (USTR, Washington, DC, 2012).
4. UNAIDS, DOHA+10: TRIPS Flexibilities and Access to Antiretroviral Therapy: Lessons from the Past, Opportunities for the Future (UNAIDS, Geneva, 2011).
5. C. Correa, Guidelines for the Examination of Pharmaceutical Patents: Developing a Public Health Perspective (WHO-ICTSD-UNCTAD, Geneva, 2007).
6. K. Grogan, PharmaTimes, 24 February 2012.
7. L. Pray, Nat. Educ. 1, 565 (2008).
8. Novartis, Glivec Patent Case in India: Fact vs. Fiction; www. novartis.com/downloads/newsroom/glivec-information-center/Fact-vs-fiction-of- Glivec-India-Case.pdf.
9. C. S. Hemphill, B. N. Sampat, J. Health Econ. 31, 327 (2012).
10. M. E. Furrow, Food Drug Law J. 63, 275 (2008) .
11. S. Hemphill, B. N. Sampat, J. Empir. Legal Stud. 8, 613 (2011).
12. R. Eisenberg, Lewis & Clark Law Rev. 12, 375 (2008).
13. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006).
14. Patents can be revoked using 3(d) as well, via postgrant opposition.
15. ParagraphFour.com, Gleevec (imatinib) tablets; www.paragraphfour.com.
16. A. Kapczynski, Calif. Law Rev. 97, 1571 (2009).
17. C. H. Unnikrishnan, LiveMint.com, 10 December 2008; www.livemint.com/ 2008/12/10000020/India-granting-drug-patents-fo.html.
18. S. Basheer, Patent Oppositions in India: The "Efficacy" of Section 3(d); www.spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2009/09/patent-oppositions-in-india- efficacy-of.html.
19. S. Basheer, P. Reddy, SCRIPTed 5(2), 232 (2008); www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/ script-ed/vol5-2/basheer.asp.