Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Julien Reinhard. I am a member of the Berne Declaration, a Swiss NGO aiming at improving the relations between Switzerland and the developing countries. I am taking the floor to express the concern regarding the court case brought by Novartis in India and the way Novartis reacted to critics. In 2006, Novartis patent application for a life-saving anticancer medicine (Glivec® - imatinib mesylate) was rejected. Following this decision, Novartis decided to bring a court case not only against this decision but also against the provision of the Indian Patent Act upon which the decision was based.

This court case of Novartis against the Indian Patent Act raises serious concerns because it goes far beyond the case of Glivec® and may affect access to essential and life-saving medicines for a variety of diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS.

In 2005, India changed its patent law to comply with World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property. As a result, patents are now available in India and innovations are protected. In amending its law, India incorporated some “public health safeguards”, to ensure that to the extent possible low-cost versions of some medicines would remain available. It included in its law a provision against abusive patents of new forms of known substance that do not bring more efficacy. This is precisely the provision Novartis is challenging, allegating that it is not conform to World Trade Organization Agreements. However, no WTO member, including Switzerland, has complained that the Indian law violates its WTO obligations. This provision has even been commended by the World Health Organization Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health that was chaired by the former President of the Swiss Confederation Ms. Ruth Dreifuss.

If Novartis succeeds in forcing the Indian government to change its law, low-cost generic medicines for a variety of conditions would no longer be available. This would impact access to medicines, in particular HIV/AIDS medicines, for millions of poor people in India as well in Africa, and other poor regions of the world. India has been the key supplier of low-cost quality generic medicines internationally, providing a lifeline to poor people who cannot afford expensive patented medicines. The competition by Indian generics enabled to lower substantially the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine from 10,000 $ per patient per year to less than 140 $ per patient per year. It is frequent to refer to India as the pharmacy of the developing world. Indian generic firms supply about 50 percent of all HIV/AIDS medicines distributed in developing countries.

This court case of Novartis against the Indian Patent Act has raised since serious concerns in Switzerland and worldwide. Since last October, a coalition of NGOs (more than 70 today) from Switzerland and from Asia, Africa, America and Europe endorsed an open letter to you requesting that Novartis drops this case. The signatories include the Berne Declaration, the Swiss Aids Federation, the Swiss Cancer League, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam International, Health Action International Europe and Asia - Pacific and others. Moreover more than 350'000 persons requested through petition or direct letter that Novartis drops its case in India. Several prominent personalities have joined to request the same, including former President of the Swiss Confederation Ruth Dreifuss, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa Stephen Lewis, and Dr. Michel Kazatchkine, the new head of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

For the time being, Novartis still refuse to reconsider its decision and to drop its case in India.

Novartis is providing Glivec® free of charge to 6600 patients in India and recognizes that it sells it to only about 50 patients in the country. It means that to sell one medicine to a minority of rich patients in India and other developing countries, Novartis is ready to put into question access to low-cost medicines to the majority of patients in developing countries. This is not socially responsible. By acting so, Novartis is tarnishing its reputation.

My question is:
When Novartis will listen to the voice from the civil society and when will it act in a socially responsible manner by droping its case in India ?

I thank you for your attention.

Julien Reinhard