Template:Did you know nominations/Novartis v. Union of India & Others

Novartis v. Union of India & Others

 * ... that Supreme Court of India in Novartis v. Union of India & Others rejected patent protection for stereoisomers of cancer drug Imatinib?



Created by User:Legaleagle86 (talk). Self nom at 10:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC).


 * I originally came to nominate this impressive new article and am glad to see it has been nominated by its creator. I have done some copyediting of the article and don't plan to take on the review as a consequence.  However, I must object to the proposed hook as it is scientifically flawed.  Differences in crystalline forms are not stereoisomers within the standard chemical meaning of that term.  I suggest hooks such as:
 * (ALT1): ... that a recent case in the Supreme Court of India rejected an attempt at evergreening the patent for anti-cancer drug Gleevec (imatinib)?
 * (ALT2): ... that a recent case in the Indian Supreme Court refused to evergreen the patent for anti-cancer drug Gleevec because a polymorph of an existing substance must show increased efficacy to be an invention?
 * (ALT3): ... that a recent Indian Supreme Court case refused to evergreen the patent for anti-cancer drug Gleevec because a polymorph of an existing substance must show increased efficacy to be an invention?
 * (ALT4): ... that due to a recent decision by the Supreme Court of India regarding evergreening of the patent for anti-cancer drug Gleevec, manufacturer Novartis "will not invest in drug research in India"?
 * I realise that the OP may need to check on the referencing issues my comment raises - sorry - but as a chemist I am certain that polymorphism (the issue in the case with the &beta;-crystalline form) and stereoisomerism are not the same thing. I have added some changes to the article that might be helpful in this regard. EdChem (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with EdChem on almost all the points. I prefer (ALT2) with two minor modifications: ... that in a recent case the Indian Supreme Court refused to evergreen the patent for anti-cancer drug Gleevec because a polymorph of an existing substance must show increased therapeutic efficacy to be an invention? LegalEagle (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have struck the original hook, and ALT2. I have added a link for the medical meaning of efficacy.  I would change to LegalEagle's version except that it violates the 200 character rule.  So, I am adding an ALT2a which is 201 characters (using the European spelling of Glivec):
 * (ALT2a): ... that a recent Indian Supreme Court case refused to evergreen the patent for anti-cancer drug Glivec because an existing substance polymorph must show increased therapeutic efficacy to be an invention?
 * I realise that 201 characters is over the limit too, but it is C9 < 200 in hexadecimal. :)  EdChem (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)  PS:  Changing the 'because' to 'as' would bring the hook under 200 characters.  EdChem (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When I was reading the Alt2a hook out loud, it sounded a bit weird, it sounds as if the case refused to patent, when it is the court which refused. How does this sound (ALT2b): ... that in a recent case Indian Supreme Court refused to evergreen the patent for anti-cancer drug Glivec as an existing substance polymorph must show increased therapeutic efficacy to be an invention? Sacrificed 'because' to gain 5 letters used them as 'in'. LegalEagle (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That version needs ", the" inserted between 'case' and 'Supreme', so the length problem remains. Actually, it probably should be "an attempt" to evergreen the patent, since the requested patent was not declared as evergreening by Novartis, that's rather the interpretation of what they were doing.  Maybe we need to IAR our way past the 200 character limit.  EdChem (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Full review still needed.  EdChem (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Full review done. It's a thorough article with lots of sources. There are however a few issues. First off, the fair use rationale of the TIME cover is much too minimalistic; it needs to be fleshed out. Furthermore, it talks about "magic bullets", but the referenced page doesn't contain that phrase. Lastly, reference 22 is a length document. Perhaps you could list the page number where we need to look for the reference? Furthermore, the hook needs to be trimmed down. It's much too detailed and long. Perhaps come up with something completely different?  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Expanded fair use rationale at the image page with the usual disclaimers (pls do let me know if it needs more), removed the NYT ref and added ref from Time magazine and another additional ref which refers to the time mag article, added page number to the judgement ref. As for the hook, open to suggestions but would prefer a detailed hook.LegalEagle (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Still not satisfied with the fair use rationale. Please take a look at File:1986 Cover of Newsweek.jpg for an example of what I'm looking for. When it comes down to the hook, on second thought ALT4 is by far my most favorite and could very well serve our purposes. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  15:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Amended the rationale to make it less generic, tried to emphasise on how the cover page shows the adulation/importance bestowed on the drug by popular press etc. Hope it suffices. As for the hook, ALT4 is my least favourite because it highlights a negative connotation further as has been later outed by reports the research expenses of Novartis in India was roughly 0.03 percent of its entire expenditure in India (so the threat has little ground effect). I am sure we can find an acceptable hook, can you suggest any alt hooks (or changes to ALT2b). LegalEagle (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to approve this article, but since you ask me to review ALT2A.. I propose to change it to this:
 * (ALT2B): ... that a recent Indian Supreme Court case refused to evergreen the patent for an anti-cancer drug because it was not sufficiently inventive?
 * It contains the essence, but is shorter as well as devoid of the legal language only understood by IP law professionals. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about (ALT2C): ... that in Novartis v. Union of India & Others, Indian Supreme Court refused to evergreen the patent for an anti-cancer drug because it was not sufficiently inventive?
 * This gives focus on the article with the full name of the case and is below 200 character limit.LegalEagle (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And thanks for considering approving the article.LegalEagle (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's even better I think!  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  05:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)