Mumbai: Affordable version of the combination of hypertension, Valsartan, will soon come out of retail rack.
The Delhi High Court has placed a drug company for a while – including Natco Pharma, Torrent Pharma, Lifesciences Eris and Windlas Biotech – from marketing generic copies of the popular combination of Valsartan and Sacubitril, responding to suit filed by MNC Novartis.
The court ruled that the generic version of violating the patent held by Novartis (IN051) on the combination of Valsartan and Sacubitril, used to treat hypertension.
This product is a complex ‘supramolecular’ of two compounds, where the patent application submitted in 2007 was still delayed, the law expert said to TI.
Generic companies also sell versions of supramolecular drugs.
The supramolecular complex is a structure in which both entities are arranged and bound to form a unit.
Like this, in a patented version, isolated compounds, such as in a physical mixture.
Generic companies, including Natco, are expected to appeal immediately.
The court argued that the supramolecular complex was covered by IN051 patents and violated it, experts added.
The order passed by Jayant Nath justice, the validity of the patent ‘Prima Facie’ upheld.
“Therefore, only because the Plaintiff has applied for supramolecular complex registration of two components of Valsartan and Sacubitril, is the application No.
4412, does not change or change the position of vis-vis interpretation of claims 1 of claims 1 patent coat.
Prima facie, no Services in defense defense, “command, copy available with TOI, said.
Combination drugs marketed by Natco as Valsac are preached at 1,260 rs prices for 50mg (28 tablets) and at Rs 1,540 for 100mg, which was launched in 2019.
Novartis marketed a combination drug under a 50mg Vymada brand for around Rs 1,100 per 14 per 14 tablet strips .
When contacted, the company spokesman said, “Novartis believes strong in intellectual property which includes all our drugs and will continue to defend our IP rights.” Officials representing generic companies are not available for comments.
According to the defendant, “the Plaintiff, it was stated, it was misleading and misstep stating that the supramolecular complex was covered with a patent suit, 051.” Furthermore, the Plaintiff has intentionally suppressed the fact that the plaintiff also has a supramolecular complex covered by a delayed patent application.
In the application, it was stated that the Plaintiff had taken a complex attitude of the supramolecular found a lot after patent coat and was unknown when submitting a patent suit.
Furthermore, the defendant also filed a counter claim to revoke Patent India IN051, The Order said.