The lucrative domestic medical devices industry, estimated to touch $1.7 billion in 2010 and expected to grow at an annual growth rate of around 23%, is getting mired in entangled patent litigation cases, with companies dragging each other to courts.
The Rs 115 crore listed domestic medical equipment company Poly Medicure Ltd (Polymed) has challenged a patent granted to German medical equipment giant with Rs 30,000 crore turnover, B Braun?s Melsungen AG, through a counter claim filed in the Chennai patent office for revocation of the patent (specific to safety IV cannula) in question. Polymed is upbeat after the brownie points it scored when the Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim?injunction filed by the German medical equipment maker. B Braun had pleaded with the court to?prevent Polymed from?continuing?to produce its brand of Safety I V Cannula. The German company on the other hand has appealed the case before a division (multiple judge) bench in the Delhi High Court, scheduled to be taken up for hearing in the early July. ?
The domestic players allege that medical devices giants are threatened by the growing presence of Indian companies in the international markets and by the ability of the Indian players to innovate, develop competitive technologies and manufacture products at a cost that is half or less than half the cost of what international players do.
?No where in the world has the medical devices sector been compared to the pharma sector for very fundamental reasons. Firstly, the laws for both areas have been very different, especially in India where while for drugs, the product patent regime was introduced as late as in 2005, while it existed in mechanical space all along.? said Pravin Anand, managing partner, Anand and Anand, the law firm representing B Braun in the case.???
Also, the life-cycles of medical devices are much shorter than life cycles of drugs, innovations in the former coming in much faster than the latter, said a B Braun spokesperson and inventor of the patent in question from B Braun, Germany .?
Himanshu Baid, managing director, Polymed hailed the dismissal of the injunction appeal and claimed that the patent granted in this case is flawed against which his company has already appealed. He also maintained that his product against which patent infringement case has been filed is different from the B Braun?s product in question. The high court has also said in the judgement that B Braun suppressed the fact that it was aware of Polymed selling safety IV cannula. Anand admitted that Polymed furnished documents to prove that B Braun was in know of Polymed manufacturing and selling IV cannula,?but the company wasn?t aware of the configuration of the safety IV cannula.
The two companies had a contractual agreement before parting ways during the legal stand off.
The B-Braun spokesperson from Germany said that the company is disappointed about the court decision. ?It took us over 13 months wait to hear about the dismissal of the application. In Germany, the same application would have met its fate in a few weeks time. This would dissuade foreign companies from marketing innovator products in the Indian market.? said the B-Braun spokesperson.