Defamation notice from CPAA to Vasella

[Guest guest]

below is the text of a defamation notice that the Cancer Patients Aid

Association sent to Novartis CEO Vasella in relation to some

allegations he made in a recent IP-Health watch article.

22 January 2007

1. Dr. Vasella Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Novartis AG Schwarzwaldallee 215 4058 Basel Switzerland.

2. Dr. Vasella

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Novartis AG Lichstrasse 35

4002 Basel Switzerland.

* Sub:* Defamatory statements made by you

Dear Dr. Vasella,

Under instructions from my client, Cancer Patients Aid Association, through its

founder-Chairman, Mr. Y. K. Sapru, I have to state as under:

1. My client, Cancer Patients Aid Association, is a charitable organisation and

was registered in India under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in January

1970 and under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1940 in February 1970. My client

has its registered office at 5, Malhotra House, opposite G.P.O., Mumbai – 400

001. My client has its head office in Mumbai and branch offices in Delhi,

Bangalore and Pune. It also has a worldwide reputation for its integrity, hard

work and dedication.

2. My client states that it was founded with the objective of providing holistic

and total management of cancer patients, including

awareness, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of cancer

patients. Over the past three decades, through sheer dint of hard work, my

client has built up tremendous goodwill for itself as an organisation that

offers help for the holistic and total management of cancer.

3. My client states that on 10 November 2003, Novartis AG was granted

exclusive marketing rights for *Gleevec* by the Patent Controller of India.

Subsequently, Novartis AG instituted infringement

actions against Indian companies, who were manufacturing and selling

*Gleevec* at Rs. 8,000-12,000 per month in India. Novartis AG

was successful in obtaining injunctions restraining most Indian companies

referred to above from selling *Gleevec*. As a result of this, those who wanted

to purchase *Gleevec* had to pay Rs. 120,000/- per month.

4. My client states that therefore on 22 July 2004, it filed a petition

against Novartis AG, the company of which you are the Cairman and Chief

Executive Officer, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the

Exclusive Marketing Rights that was granted to Novartis AG by the Patent

Controller of India.

5. My client states that after the amendment to the Indian Patents Act in 2005,

it filed a pre-grant opposition to the grant of a

patent to the application filed by Novartis AG for the drug *

Gleevec*. On 25 January 2006, the Patent Controller rejected

Novartis AG's application.

6. My client states that pursuant to the order of the Patent Controller,

Novartis AG has challenged the decision of the Patent Controller and also

Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Hon'ble Madras High

Court at Chennai.

7. My client states that it has recently come to its notice that you have made

certain defamatory statements and insinuations about my

client, which were published on 19 October 2006 in an article titled

" Novartis Persists With Challenge to Indian Patent Law Despite

Adversity " , which is available on the Internet at *

http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=430*. It is

indisputable that this article is with reference to the

aforementioned cases before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It is also well-known

that my client is the *only* patient group that is presently a party opposing

you in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The article states:

" Vasella said that generic companies are often behind patient groups in India,

and said he would not be surprised if they gave money to the groups " . Therefore,

it is clear that your comments are aimed at my client and you have alleged that

my client is backed by generic companies and further that it accepts money from

generic companies. This is false and *per se* defamatory.

8. My client has, through sheer dint of hard work, obtained for itself a

lot of credibility and goodwill in society. As stated above, my client has a

reputation in India and worldwide for its

integrity, hard work and dedication. It is known as a patients' group that is

genuinely concerned about holistic management of cancer and assisting poorer

patients in procuring drugs. It is due to my client's concern for access to

medicines for poorer patients that it has been involved in the aforementioned

proceedings against you. However, your comments insinuate that my client is an

organisation that is backed by and being paid money by generic companies to

oppose multinational pharmaceutical companies. My client states that this

is false and *per se* defamatory of my client and its work for

cancer patients.

9. My client wishes to state that it has not accepted any money from

generic companies for the case relating to *Gleevec* at any

time whatsoever. Moreover, the lawyers acting for my client in the

*Gleevec *case have acted and agreed to act for my client pro

bono.

10. My client states that due to the statement made by you, my

client has been portrayed as a sham patient group. This article is

accessible over the Internet and can be accessed by thousands

interested in the issue of access to medicines. My client has received telephone

calls from journalists from India and abroad, oncologists and several close

friends and relatives inquiring whether the statement made by you imputing that

my client has received money from generic companies for the *Gleevec *case. This

has put my client in an extremely embarrassing position and my client is

constrained to justify the proceedings it has undertaken.

11. You are hereby called upon to forthwith retract your statement and

issue an unconditional apology over your company

website and on Intellectual Property Watch, and pay an amount of USD 500,000 to

my client as damages, failing which my client will be forced to initiate legal

proceedings, civil or criminal, against you, entirely at your risk as to the

costs and consequences, which please note.

e-mail: <george.julie@...>