The Madras High Court's dismissal of Novartis petition, challenging the constitutional validity of the sect 3 (d) of the Indian patents (amendment) Act 2005, will have a positive impact on the availability of cheaper medicines to the poor people of the country. Though Novartis can move the Supreme Court and approach the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in Geneva, the result might not be different from that of the Madras High Court.

Patent experts are of the view that the Novartis has already missed the bus in the case and even if it moves the Supreme Court there might not be any change in the outcome. "No other type of judgement can come in this case", said patent expert Gopakumar Nair. It is a well considered judgement that took more than a year to deliver the final verdict. The court proceedings went on for around 8-9 months and it took more than three months to study the argument before delivering the verdict. "The supreme court cannot be otherwise in this case," he further said.

Echoing the same feeling, another patent expert Feroz Ali Khader said that the Madras High Court verdict will have a direct implication on the drug market in the country as cosmetic changes of drugs will not be allowed in the country. It is a good news for the generic drug producers of the country as only genuine drugs will get the patents. "It is a remarkable judgement as it will give access to cheaper medicines in the country," Khader said.

Reacting to the Madras High Court verdict, the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), which represents big Indian pharma companies, secretary general DG Shah said that the verdict vindicates the IPA stand on the matter. The verdict will pave way for ensuring generic medicines to the needy people. "The verdict has addressed the issue of access to medicines at cheaper prices," Shah said.

Shah said that High Court was not the right forum to fight this case. Novartis should have roped in Switzerland government to move against the Indian law in the WTO. The Madras High Court verdict will drive the Indian companies for original research.

Meanwhile, reacting to the development, Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI), a body which represents mostly multinational pharma companies, secretary general Dr Ajit Dangi said that the government should have allowed incremental innovations as it will have a great public health advantage. It is allowed in all the developed countries like US and UK, and the same should have been followed here also for the good of the public health. However, he refused to be drawn directly into the Madras High Court verdict against Novartis. "We don't comment on individual companies," e tersely said.

Indian Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA), a body representing Indian drug companies, also refused to comment on the issue. "I have not seen the judgement. So I cannot comment on it," IDMA president BN Singh said.

Reacting to the verdict, Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industries (CIPI), an organisation of small pharma units, chairman TS Jaishankar said that the verdict will adversely affect the entry of multinational companies in the country. He however said that this will not affect the growth of the industry in the country.