When justice prevails over monopoly

Court denial to Roche to block generic version of Risdiplam redresses growing imbalance between intellectual property protection & public health needs

- JYOTSNA SINGH KM GOPAKUMAR

ON OCTOBER 9, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment that could redefine access to lifesaving medicines in India.

In rejecting Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche’s appeal against Natco Pharma, the court upheld the right of people living with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) to affordable treatment. Roche had sought an interim injunction against Natco, claiming the generic version of Risdiplam infringes Roche’s patent. The company argued that allowing a local producer to sell it would result in irreparable damage during the pendency of its patent infringement suit. The Supreme Court upheld the high court’s order, denying Roche’s appeal to block Natco’s generic version.

Earlier in March, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court had rejected Roche’s plea for interim injunction, finding that the validity of the patent is questionable. Roche immediately appealed against that court order—and lost again. The division bench largely agreed with the single-judge bench. It appreciated the credible challenge on the validity of Roche’s patent and found merit in the argument that the patent failed to qualify as an invention, while rejecting the appeal. As India’s laws don’t allow patents on mere tweaks to existing knowledge, the patent itself was an attempt to extend a monopoly. If allowed, Roche’s patent would expire in May 2035.