Taking a neutral stand in the issue having a technical member in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), the Madras HC on Tuesday made a verdict stating that the IPAB could consist of both a chairman and a vice chairman, while there was no need for a technical member. However, the court ascertained that the IPAB can consult a technical expert for clarifications. The copy of the judgment is awaited.
Earlier, the government had agreed to the demand of Novartis that S Chandrasekhar, the technical member in the IPAB, should not continue in the committee as he was the controller general of the Chennai patent office that rejected Novartis? patent for its cancer drug, Glivec during 2006. Challenging the government?s stand, Natco pharma had filed a petition in the Madras HC saying that IPAB should consist of a technical member as the issue with Glivec is too much technical and cannot be heard in the IPAB without the presence of a technical member. The chairman and vice chairman of IPAB are Justice MHS Anzari and ZS Negi, respectively. Lawyers who are familiar with the development said that the Madras HC verdict is an apt one as it can avoid further delays in hearing of the Glivec case in the IPAB. They also informed that a chance for going for further appeal by either Natco or Novartis could not be ruled out.
