Novartis’ objection to Chandrasekharan dimissed by IPAB

Pursuant to my earlier postings on this issue, the IPAB has dismissed Novartis’s objection to the presence of Chandrasekharan as a technical member on the IPAB panel. As many of us expect, this decision is likely to be appealed–and apart from more biiling hours to lawyers involved in this highly politicized case, the delay will do no one any good!! I haven’t seen the IPAB order yet–but it does seem like Novartis has a good case in trying to get Chandrasekharan off the panel and an appellate court may be more open to their objection.

The Business Standard Reports:

“The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has dismissed the application by pharma major Novartis to appoint a new technical member in place of former Patent Controller S Chandrasekhar to hear its appeal against the Patent Office’s denial of patent to its blockbuster blood cancer drug Glivec.

Novartis was of the view that Chandrasekhar, being the Patent Controller who denied the patent rights for Glivec, should not be on IPAB when an appeal against the decision is heard.

IPAB, in its hearing today, dismissed the Novartis plea. It is yet to give a date for hearing the original appeal.

Terming the development as disappointing, a Novartis spokesperson said the company is considering various options. “Today’s decision was a summary judgement and we will not know the panel’s reasoning until a full written judgement is issued. We will consider our options once we see the full text,” she said.”

Shamnad Basheer

Shamnad Basheer

Prof (Dr) Shamnad Basheer founded SpicyIP in 2005. He is currently the Honorary Research Chair of IP Law at Nirma University and a visiting professor of law at the National Law School (NLS), Bangalore. He is also the Founder of IDIA, a project to train underprivileged students for admissions to the leading law schools. He served for two years as an expert on the IP global advisory council (GAC) of the World Economic Forum (WEF). In 2015, he received the Infosys Prize in Humanities in 2015 for his work on legal education and on democratising the discourse around intellectual property law and policy. The jury was headed by Nobel laureate, Prof Amartya Sen. Professional History: After graduating from the NLS, Bangalore Professor Basheer joinedAnand and Anand, one of India’s leading IP firms. He went on to head their telecommunication and technology practice and was rated by the IFLR as a leading technology lawyer. He left for the University of Oxford to pursue post-graduate studies, completing the BCL, MPhil and DPhil as a Wellcome Trust scholar. His first academic appointment was at the George Washington University Law School, where he served as the Frank H Marks Visiting Associate Professor of IP Law. He then relocated to India in 2008 to take up the MHRD Chaired Professorship in IP Law at WB NUJS, a leading Indian law school. Prof Basheer has published widely and his articles have won awards, including those instituted by ATRIP and the Stanford Technology Law Review. He is consulted widely by the government, industry, international organisations and civil society on a variety of IP issues. He also serves on several government committees.


  1. Avatarmedicherla.ravi

    a piece from hindu dated 21/7/07
    on this topic which novartis could use for appeal as u were mentioning..
    “Rejecting the objection, the IPAB Bench comprising board Chairman M H S Ansari and S Chandrasekaran yesterday said “the submissions made by Chandrasekaran have no relevance as they were based on his official capacity as a statutory authority before assuming the post of adjudicator and hence must be eschewed from consideration on the facts of the instant matter”.

  2. AvatarShamnad Basheer

    Thanks Ravi,

    “Official Capacity” as “Statutory Authority”?? How does this absolve him of allegations of bias. Principles of natural justice (under admin law) do apply squarely to folks who purportedly act in their “official capacity”. Besides, even on the IPAB, he continues to act in an “Official Capacity” as a “Statutory Authority”!!

  3. AvatarSneha

    I agree with Shamnad… Chandrasekharan if siting to decide a case alleging bias against him when he has already ruled against the drug as Patent Controller is bound to have prejudices against the drug as his earlier arguments and reasoning will definitely affect his judgment in the present case… it all just seems to be a power game from outside…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.