Intellectual Property Appellate Board hits out at US threat to downgrade India’s status

Chennai:

Intellectual Property Appellate Board has hit out at the move by United States Chamber of Commerce urging United States Trade Representative (USTR) to downgrade India’s status as worst intellectual property rights offender.

Speaking at a day-long national level workshop ‘Patentability: Ever greening and Compulsory Licensing in Indian Context and Global Threats’ here on Saturday, chairman of Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai, K N Basha said that what sin has India committed that has forced US Chamber to ask USTR to review intellectual patents regime and downgrade India’s status to ‘Priority Foreign Country’.

He said US Chamber of Commerce has asked USTR to classify India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’ specifically citing concerns over compulsory licensing. According to the World Trade Organisation, Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner.

India invoked the provision in 2012 in the case pertaining to Bayer Corporation versus Natco Pharma over the sale of patented drug Nexavar. Natco had sought for compulsory licence stating that the patentee failed to meet the requirements of public and the drug is not available to people at reasonable price. The drug was priced at Rs 2.8 lakh per month. IPAB intervened and asked Natco to manufacture and sell the same drug at Rs 8,800 per month besides paying a royalty of six per cent to Bayer.

“The verdict was in the interest of people. The judicial activism is for protecting the public interest,” he said.

He said the decision is consistent with Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. “the decision is widely welcomed by many developing countries around the world,” he said.

He said that the right to health has become an integral part of Article 21 of Constitution. “Affordable drugs are an integral component of universal health care and accessible health care. When there is a conflict between patentee’s right and the public’s right to live, it is obvious that the latter will prevail over the former,” the former High court judge said.