Putting public health before patent rights

Roche's patent suit against Natco spotlights the problem of patients with rare diseases and access to pricey drugs

- 

WE WILL begin with a standout paragraph in a recent judgement on a case involving access to life-saving medicines. Public health, it said, is not something that should be dealt with lightly. As such, “A drug which is the only one available for treatment in India, for a rare disease, its availability to the public at large at very economical and competitive prices, is a material factor which a Court will consider at the time of dealing with an application for interim injunction.” For emphasis, the judge noted that “the plaintiffs can be compensated by way of damages. However, there exists no right for the public to lessen or compensate itself.”

This was Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court in her ruling on March 24, while dismissing the patent infringement suit filed by Swiss pharma giant Hoffman La Roche against Natco Pharma of Hyderabad. Few judgements in recent years have foregrounded public health concerns as this while dealing with patent infringement suits. In this instance, Roche had sought an injunction against Natco that was developing a generic version of its risdiplam, a prohibitively expensive drug used in treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) patients. SMA is a rare genetic disease that affects motor nerve cells in the spinal cord and impacts muscles used for breathing, eating, crawling and walking. There is no cure for this progressive condition that requires life-long treatment.