The campaign launched by the Swiss based NGO, Berne Declaration (BD) asking Novartis International to withdraw its appeal filed in Chennai High Court against the rejection of patent application for Glivec by the Indian patent authorities has once again brightened the hopes of millions of cancer patients in the world. BD wanted the Swiss multinational to stop attempting to restrict using the flexibility permitted under the TRIPS Agreement to meet public health needs. The NGO's communication, submitted to Mr. Daniel Vasella, chairman of Novartis International, has been endorsed by Ruth Dreifuss, Chairperson of WHO's Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health and a number of prominent public health NGOs. They are right in saying that Section 3(d) of TRIPS Agreement prevents the grant of patents for new forms or new uses of known substances and it is one of the recognized flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement which allow countries to adopt them in their legislation. This was also highlighted by WHO Commission in its 2006 report. Therefore, Novartis' stand is in contradiction to the letter and spirit of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Novartis' challenge, if succeeds in the court, could seriously affect access of not only of generic imatinib mesylate in India but also the availability of HIV/AIDS medicines in developing countries that import Indian generic medicines. Novartis' Glivec costs Rs 120,000 for an year's treatment in India whereas the cost comes down to about Rs 10,000 for treating with generics produced by India's domestic pharma companies like Cipla, Ranbaxy and others. With the grant of EMR to Novartis in 2004 and subsequent litigations, most of the Indian companies had to discontinue marketing of their imatinib mesylate brands in India. The Hyderabad-based Natco, however, continued to market its product as that is the only company which obtained a stay against Novartis' EMR. A good number of cancer patients are not able to procure Natco's product and still have to go for the expensive Glivec. Novartis does have a Glivec International Patient Assistance Programme for the benefit of poor patients worldwide and the drug is given free to those patients who are not insured and to those who are not getting reimbursed the cost of treatment. But several thousands of patients in India are disqualified for this benefit just because they are covered by Employee State Insurance Scheme and most of the low paid employees in the public and private sectors are covered by ESIS. The insurance coverage under ESIS is nominal and that does not enable the patients to go for such expensive treatment. If Novartis is really serious to help poor cancer patients, it has to realistically assess the economic conditions of the patients before denying the benefit to this class of patients. The disease is no more restricted to affluent people and is affecting all classes today. The number of cancer patients in the country is in several lakhs. Novartis' stand on the cancer drug is surprising considering a statement of Mr. Vasella who is also the president of International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. At a recent meeting he told the media that the global pharma industry is dogged by a "perception of greed, lack of transparency, aggressive marketing and insensitivity towards the healthcare needs of the poor". This statement is quite reflective of the state of affairs of this industry today. Drug MNCs had attempted to deny access to cheap generic drugs to AIDS patients in South Africa some years ago. Now it is being done to cancer patients in India. It is this insensitivity of global pharmaceutical players towards the poor patients that brings the negative perception of this industry.