“Well, You have not made out prima facie case for Compulsory License”: Notifies Rajiv Agarwal, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, to Lee Pharma!

In a major update for the patent circle (and of course Pharma industry), reportedly, Lee Pharma, a Hyderabad based Indian pharma company, which had filed a Compulsory Licensing (CL) Application on June 29, 2015, in India, against one of the patented drug Saxagliptin of AstraZeneca (used for treating Diabetes Mellitus), has failed to make out prima facie case for the same. Cognizance of the same has already been taken by Economic times and SpicyIP. This is the second blog written on the CL filed by Lee Pharma by IIPRD, an earlier blog which discusses patent details, grounds of application can be accessed directly by clicking here.

This development has to be recognized as a major one because application by Lee Pharma is the third instance of applying for Compulsory Licensing in India and of the earlier two, one was accepted and the other was rejected. Of course, this development is also important when Pharma and Patent world wants to see how India is responding to US pressure on amending the patent laws.

It is noteworthy that Controller has not refused CL application for Lee Pharma, rather he has only notified Lee Pharma that it has not made out the prima facie case for the order under section 84. The controller was required to do so by Rule 97 (1). Further according to rule 97 (1), Lee pharma has one month from the date of notification to request for the hearing, if it wants to proceed with the application and if the request for a hearing is not made, the controller shall refuse the application. According to Rule 97 (2), if a request for a hearing is made within 1 month from the relevant notification, the Controller shall, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, determine whether the application may be proceeded with or whether it shall be refused.

Though, Economic times claims to have seen the copy of notification given to Lee Pharma by the controller, and also claims that the controller has found Lee Pharma’s proposed selling price several times the import cost and only marginally below that of AstraZeneca, and the controller has also stated that manufacture in India is not a necessary precondition to establish working in India according to the relevant section. It is expected that Lee Pharma will likely exercise the provision for hearing available to it.

So here we are, all eyes on you now, Lee Pharma, the clock is already ticking.

Once the final decision regarding the CL application is issued and made public, we will be back here for a detailed discussion on the same, as this is something we just can’t afford to miss, right?

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 + 11 =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010