Right to Intellectual Property in Novartis: Interpretation of Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005

The well-known and newly decided Novartis Glivec case flickered tensions about affordability of drug & the global protection of patent rights. This Article deals with India’s Section 3(d) of Patent law where we find a struggle to find balance concerning permitting patents that incentivize and promote innovation, regardless of the fact of not permitting the practice of “evergreening,” which could probably delay low price generic medicines from ever reaching and serving low income patients. Likewise, this Article settles to the point that the WTO Dispute Settlement Organisation would determine Section 3(d)’s efficacy standard to be an effective use of the elasticities of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and that it must be taken as a suggestion to streamline TRIPS while talking issues about apprehensions about right to intellectual property. It is also established that notwithstanding the compatibility of section 3(d) by means of TRIPs agreement, it has been agreed that the words of the relevant section is insufficient as it there is lack of clarification. The act does not explicitly and unambiguously state the range of enhanced efficacy nor is there any sort of strategies stated in that consequence. And so it is imperative to modify the phrasings of section 3(d) to make straightforward the implication of improved efficacy. It is determined that Section 3(d) does not encroach upon the TRIPS order rather avoids frivolous patenting devoid of overlooking valuable as well as appreciated incremental improvements in pharmaceuticals and is precisely well-matched with TRIPS agreement.