Delhi High Court curbs generic firms from developing patented drugs

Delhi High Court curbs generic firms from developing patented drugs

Order against the combination of medicines used to treat cardiovascular diseases

The Delhi High Court has restrained generic pharmaceutical companies from manufacturing and selling Novartis' patented drugs Valsartan and Sacubitril, a patented combination used to treat cardiovascular diseases.

Justice Jayant Nath's order came against pharma companies including Windlas Biotech, Natco and Torrent. He instructed the firms not to manufacture the drugs under the brand name 'Valsac' as a heart treatment drug, on grounds that it amounted to an infringement of Novartis's patent.

The order said, "An injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against all the defendants restraining the defendants, their agents, etc. from manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, etc. any pharmaceutical composition comprising a combination of Valsartan or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, and Sacubitril or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or more specifically a pharmaceutical composition comprising a combination of Sacubitril+Valsartan as a sodium salt complex or in any other form which may amount to infringement of the Indian patent.

The court was hearing a series of suits arising out of the common issue of the alleged infringement of the patent belonging to the pharmaceutical company, Novartis. The patent had been granted to Novartis in 2009 in India and 50 countries.

Appearing on behalf of Novartis, advocate Mamta Jha submitted that for effective treatment of heart failure and hypertension, the combination of Valsartan and Sacubitril involved a great amount of research and experiments on the part of Novartis.

Even though senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing on behalf of the defendant companies, appealed that a scientific adviser be appointed by the court to assist or inquire and report upon the facts or provide a scientific opinion.

However, the court said that the opinion of the scientific adviser was not binding on it and proceeded to pass an injunction against the defendants.