#hoffmann-la roche

ministry of health and prevention showcases global and regional launch of strong lineup of innovative health services

UAE – The Ministry of Health and Prevention (MOHAP) has announced that the Ministry’s participation this year has had a strong line up of innovative health services launched globally and regionally during its participation at the Arab Health Exhibition & Congress 2017, which was hailed by participants and visitors as a success, revealing the UAE’s excellence and leadership in securing the…

For those who missed this: Repost http://corporatelawreporter.com/2013/08/05/kolkata-patent-office-clarifies-its-decision-on-divisional-applications-of-herceptin/

Kolkata Patent office Clarifies ITS Decision on Divisional Applications of Herceptin

This has a reference to the above-mentioned matter published today. The response of the Kolkata Patent Office vis-à-vis the news item is given herein below:

A.    India has partly revoked patents granted to Roche Holding AG for its breast cancer drug Herceptin, a spokesman for the drugmaker confirmed on Sunday. Swiss newspaper Schweiz am Sonntag reported that the Kolkata Patent Office had lifted divisional patents for Herceptin on July 17 on the grounds they had not been properly submitted. “I can confirm that the Assistant Controller of Patents at the Kolkata Patent Office has revoked divisional patents of Herceptin and that we are now considering the further course of action,” a spokesman for Roche said.

Response of the Office: The news item does not fully reflect and appreciate the situation under which the Patent Office has disposed of the said divisional applications. A synopsis of the patent/ applications for patent related to Herceptin is given herein below:

An application for patent IN/PCT/2000/391/KOL was filed on 11‐10‐2000 and was later granted a patent with a title “A composition comprising a mixture of anti-HER2 antibody”. The grant of the patent was published on 06.04.2007. It may be noted that after the grant of a patent, the said grant may be opposed by an interested member of the public. In the instant case, the grant of the said patent has been challenged through this post-grant opposition procedure.

As per the Indian Patents Act, a patent is granted for one invention only [Section 46 of the Patents Act]. If the claims of an application relate to more than one application, such application can be divided and further applications (called divisional applications, please see Section 16 of the Act) can be filed. A divisional application has to be filed before the date of grant of the first application (usually referred as  mother application). Let it be noted that after the filing of the application, the application is duly published in the Official journal. An applicant has to file a request for examination for an application within forty eight months from the date of priority of the application (other than divisional applications) and within forty eight months from the date of priority or within six months from the date of filing in the case of divisional applications. If the requests are not filed within time they are treated as withdrawn under section IIB(4) of the Act

Three divisional applications were filed out of this application, namely :

1638/KOLNP/2005, divisional application out of IN/PCT/2000/391/KOL date of filing: 16-08-2005. Date of filing of request: 17‐03‐2006

3272/KOLNP/2008 divisional application out of 1638/KOLNP/2005 Date of filing of request: 12‐02‐2009

3273/KOLNP/2008 divisional application out of 1638/KOLNP/2005 Date of filing of request: 12‐02‐2009

In all these cases, the Controllers of the Patent Office offered the applicant, opportunity of being heard before the final disposal of these cases.

In  1638/KOLNP/2005, the Controller found that the Request for Examination had been filed on 17.03.2006, i.e., beyond the prescribed period (which was due on 16.02.2006) according to Rule 24(B)(iv) of the Patents Rules. An opportunity of hearing was offered on 18.06.2013 before exercising any discretion vested in the controller by or under this Act adversely to the applicant. At the request of the applicant’s newly appointed agent the hearing was rescheduled on 23.07.2013. The agent of the applicant did not appear in the hearing and even did not submit any notes of argument. Under these circumstances, the Controller ordered that the application should be treated as withdrawn by the applicant under section 11B(4) of the Act.

In the matter of 3272/KOLNP/2008, the Controller found that the instant application was divisional to a divisional application, which in his opinion was not permissible. As the present application was to be construed as the divisional application of the first filed application (IN/PCT/2000/391/KOL), the said divisional application was filed after the grant of the first filed application and was not permissible under the ‘Act. The Controller gave due opportunity of hearing to the agent on 31/05/2013. After the first hearing, the Controller fixed another date of hearing in the subject matter on 15/07/2013, which was not attended by the applicant. In the operative part of the decision the Controller said “the application no. 3273/KOLNP/2008 is not considered to be a divisional application at all within the meaning of section 16 of the ‘Act. The application has not been properly filed complying with the requirements of the ‘Act and therefore, treated as abandoned”.

In the matter of 3273/KOLNP/2008 also, similar decision was arrived at by the Controller and in the instant case also, the applicant’s agent did not turn up on the date of the hearing.

It is submitted that the said divisional applications have not been revoked but were treated as withdrawn due to non-filing of Request for Examination within prescribed time or abandoned due to incorrect filing. Before the Controllers issued their decisions, the applicants were given due opportunity of being heard but the applicants have chosen not to attend.

Still thereafter, the applicant may explore further legal possibilities, as they so desire.

B.   The decision is the latest in a series of rulings on intellectual property and pricing in India that have frustrated attempts by Western drug makers to sell their medicines in India`s fast-growing drugs market.

Response of the Office: Regarding this paragraph, it is submitted that in the instant cases, the Patent Office has followed the due course of principle of natural justice, gave the applicant the opportunity of being heard and then only finally disposed of the matter. In the instant cases, it is found that proper steps for filing request or filing divisional applications were not followed by the applicants.

C. On Friday, India revoked a patent granted to GlaxoSmithKline`s for breast cancer drug Tykerb, following on from a landmark court ruling in April disallowing patents for incremental innovations.

Response of the Office: Perhaps the news item refers to a decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The IPAB, is an independent judicial authority.

D.   Roche has already adapted its business model in India to increase affordable access to drugs and try to stave off trouble from India`s patent authorities. In August 2012, it introduced cut-price versions of Herceptin and another cancer drug MabThera, under an alliance with Indian generics firm Emcure Pharmaceutics.

Response of the Office: The present abandonment or rejection of the divisional applications related to Herceptin has no nexus with the pricing of the drug. The news item failed to appreciate this fact. Once again, it is submitted that the instant divisional applications were not filed in proper manner.

 E.    Last year, India revoked patents granted to Roche`s hepatitis C drug Pegasys, Pfizer Inc`s cancer drug Sutent, and Merck & Co`s asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation. All were revoked on grounds that included lack of innovation.

English: To create this SVG-format logo, I took the EPS file at Brandsoftheworld.com, ran it through pstoedit, and then did the following modifications using Inkscape and Notepad: fixed priority (center of “O” in “Exxon”), centered on a correctly sized grid, and made markup simpler and more readable. Used in Exxon. Source: http://bit.ly/15h26kx Category:Oil company logos (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Image via CrunchBase

Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade http://ow.ly/kI8PQ

THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIMINALS OF THE 1990′s

1) F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $500 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999

2) Daiwa Bank Ltd. Type of Crime: Financial Criminal Fine: $340 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(3), March 4, 1996

3) BASF Aktiengesellschaft Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $225 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999

4) SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft (SGL AG) Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $135 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999

5) Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $125 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(3), March 18, 1991

6) UCAR International, Inc. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $110 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(6), April 13, 1998

7) Archer Daniels Midland Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $100 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1), October 21, 1996

8)(tie) Banker’s Trust Type of Crime: Financial Criminal Fine: $60 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(1), March 15, 1999

8)(tie) Sears Bankruptcy Recovery Management Services Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $60 million 13 Corporate Crime Reporter 7(1), February 15, 1999

10) Haarman & Reimer Corp. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal fine: $50 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 5(4), February 3, 1997

11) Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $37 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(1), June 8, 1998

12) Hoechst AG Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $36 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(6), May 10, 1999

13) Damon Clinical Laboratories, Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $35.2 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(6), October 14, 1996

14) C.R. Bard Inc. Type of Crime: Food and drug Criminal Fine: $30.9 million 7 Corporate Crime Reporter 41(1), October 25, 1993

15) Genentech Inc. Type of Crime: Food and drug Criminal Fine: $30 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 16(3), April 19, 1999

16) Nippon Gohsei Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $21 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(3), July 19, 1999

17)(tie) Pfizer Inc. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $20 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 26, 1999

17)(tie) Summitville Consolidated Mining Co. Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $20 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 20(3) May 20, 1996

19)(tie) Lucas Western Inc. Type of Crime: False Statements Criminal Fine: $18.5 million 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 4(6), January 30, 1995

19)(tie) Rockwell International Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $18.5 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(4), March 30, 1992

21) Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $18 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

22) Teledyne Industries Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $17.5 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(9), October 12, 1992

23) Northrop Type of Crime: False statements Criminal Fine: $17 million 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(1), March 5, 1990

24) Litton Applied Technology Division (ATD) and Litton Systems Canada (LSL) Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $16.5 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 27(1), July 5, 1999

25) Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $15 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(1), June 3, 1996

26) Eastman Chemical Company Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $11 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 38(5), October 5, 1998

27) Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. Type of Crime: Food and drug Criminal Fine: $10.65 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(1), June 2, 1997

28) Lonza AG Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $10.5 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 10(1), March 8, 1999

29) Kimberly Home Health Care Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $10.08 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(6), July 26, 1999

30)(tie) Ajinomoto Co. Inc. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $10 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1), October 21, 1996

30)(tie) Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) Type of Crime: Financial Criminal Fine: $10 million 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 3(1) January 22, 1990

30)(tie) Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $10 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1), October 21, 1996

30)(tie) Warner-Lambert Company Type of Crime: Food and drug Criminal Fine: $10 million 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 46(1), December 4, 1995

34) General Electric Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $9.5 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(7), July 27, 1992

35)(tie) Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $9 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(3), June 8, 1998

35)(tie) Showa Denko Carbon Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $9 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999

37) IBM East Europe/Asia Ltd. Type of Crime: Illegal exports Criminal Fine: $8.5 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 32(1), August 10, 1998

38) Empire Sanitary Landfill Inc. Type of crime: Campaign finance Criminal fine: $8 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(3), October 13, 1997

39)(tie) Colonial Pipeline Company Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $7 million 13 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(3), March 1, 1999

39)(tie) Eklof Marine Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $7 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 37(4), September 29, 1997

41)(tie) Chevron Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $6.5 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter, 22(1), June 1, 1992

41)(tie) Rockwell International Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $6.5 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(4), April 15, 1996

43) Tokai Carbon Ltd. Co. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $6 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999

44)(tie) Allied Clinical Laboratories, Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $5 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 45(1), November 25, 1996

44)(tie) Northern Brands International Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $5 million 13 Corporate Crime Reporter 1(1), January 4,1999

44)(tie) Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation Type of Crime: Obstruction of justice Criminal Fine: $5 million 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 2(3), January 16, 1995

44)(tie) Unisys Type of Crime: Bribery Criminal Fine: $5 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 35(11), September 16, 1991

44)(tie) Georgia Pacific Corporation Type of Crime: Tax evasion Criminal Fine: $5 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 38(8), October 7, 1991

49) Kanzaki Specialty Papers Inc. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $4.5 million 8 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(4), July 18, 1994

50) ConAgra Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $4.4 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(1), March 24, 1997

51) Ryland Mortgage Company Type of Crime: Financial Criminal Fine: $4.2 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 32(1), August 10, 1998

52)(tie) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $4 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(1), July 20, 1998

52)(tie) Borden Inc. Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $4 million 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(9), March 19, 1990

52)(tie) Dexter Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $4 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 35(6), September 14, 1992

52)(tie) Southland Corporation Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $4 million 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(9), March 19, 1990

52)(tie) Teledyne Industries Inc. Type of Crime: Illegal exports Criminal Fine: $4 million 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 5(3), February 6, 1995

52)(tie) Tyson Foods Inc. Type of Crime: Public corruption Criminal Fine: $4 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 1(3), January 5, 1998

58)(tie) Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3.75 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(6), July 22, 1991

58)(tie) Costain Coal Inc. Type of Crime: Worker Death Criminal Fine: $3.75 million 7 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(10), March 1, 1993

58)(tie) United States Sugar Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3.75 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 27(4), December 9, 1991

61) Saybolt, Inc., Saybolt North America Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3.4 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 33(1), August 17, 1998

62)(tie) Bristol-Myers Squibb Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 18(3), May 4, 1992

62)(tie) Chemical Waste Management Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(5), October 19, 1992

62)(tie) Ketchikan Pulp Company Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3 million 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(1), April 3, 1995

62)(tie) United Technologies Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 27, 1991

62)(tie) Warner-Lambert Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $3 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 37(3), September 29, 1997

67)(tie) Arizona Chemical Co. Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $2.5 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(5), October 14, 1996

67)(tie) Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $2.5 million 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 31, 1995

69) International Paper Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $2.2 million 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 31(7), August 5, 1991

70)(tie) Consolidated Edison Company Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $2 million 8 Corporate Crime Reporter 46(5), November 28, 1994

70)(tie) Crop Growers Corporation Type of Crime: Campaign finance Criminal fine: $2 million 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 4(3), January 27, 1997

70)(tie) E-Systems Inc. Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $2 million 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 33, September 3, 1990

70)(tie) HAL Beheer BV Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $2 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(4), October 12, 1998

70)(tie) John Morrell and Company Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $2 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 6(3), February 12, 1996

70)(tie) United Technologies Corporation Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $2 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 34(4), September 7, 1992

76) Mitsubishi Corporation, Mitsubishi International Corporation Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $1.8 million 8 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(4), July 18, 1994

77)(tie) Blue Shield of California Type of Crime: Fraud Criminal Fine: $1.5 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 18(3), May 6, 1996

77)(tie) Browning-Ferris Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $1.5 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(3), June 8, 1998

77)(tie) Odwalla Inc. Type of Crime: Food and drug Criminal Fine: $1.5 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 27, 1998

77)(tie) Teledyne Inc. Type of Crime: False statements Criminal Fine: $1.5 million 7 Corporate Crime Reporter 34(12), September 6, 1993

77)(tie) Unocal Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $1.5 million 8 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(8), March 21, 1994

82)(tie) Doyon Drilling Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $1 million 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 25, 1998

82)(tie) Eastman Kodak Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $1 million 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 14(1), April 9, 1990

82)(tie) Case Corporation Type of Crime: Illegal exports Criminal Fine: $1 million 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(4), June 3, 1996

85) Marathon Oil Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $900,000 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(5), June 3, 1991

86) Hyundai Motor Company Type of Crime: Campaign finance Criminal Fine: $600,000 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 48(3), December 18, 1995

87)(tie) Baxter International Inc. Type of Crime: Illegal Boycott Criminal Fine: $500,000 7 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(7) , March 29, 1993

87)(tie) Bethship-Sabine Yard Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $500,000 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 26(4), July 3, 1995

87(tie) Palm Beach Cruises Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $500,000 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

87)(tie) Princess Cruises Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $500,000 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

91)(tie) Cerestar Bioproducts BV Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $400,000 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 28(3), June 29, 1998

91)(tie) Sun-Land Products of California Type of Crime: Campaign finance Criminal Fine: $400,000 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 33(1), August 17, 1998

93)(tie) American Cyanamid Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $250,000 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 46(5), December 3, 1990

93)(tie) Korean Air Lines Type of Crime: Campaign finance Criminal Fine: $250,000 9 Corporate Crime Reporter 47(1), December 11, 1995

93)(tie) Regency Cruises Inc. Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $250,000 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

96)(tie) Adolph Coors Company Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $200,000 4 Corporate Crime Reporter 43(3), November 12, 1990

96)(tie) Andrew and Williamson Sales Co. Type of crime: Food and drug Criminal fine: $200,000 11 Corporate Crime Reporter 44(4), November 17, 1997

96)(tie) Daewoo International (America) Corporation Type of Fine: Campaign finance Criminal Fine: $200,000 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(3), April 1, 1996

96)(tie) Exxon Corporation Type of Crime: Environmental Criminal Fine: $200,000 5 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(1), March 25, 1991

100) Samsung America Inc. Type of Crime: Campaign finance Criminal Fine: $150,000 10 Corporate Crime Reporter 6(5), February 12, 1996

Image via CrunchBase

Related articles

Ralph Nader: Getting Tough on Devastating Corporate Crime

The failure to prosecute corporate crime undermines U.S. justice