 The question was about whether we are being overprotective or discriminatory, I reject that. We are a rule-based, rule-governed country, a constitutional democracy, and we respect our international obligations, including when it comes to registration of patents, irrespective of which sector they are, including in the pharmaceutical sector. We have our own pharmaceutical industry which is respected and recognised globally, making a notable contribution even when it comes to the registration of drugs or patents. So, in an environment or ecosystem where countries engage with each other, we have multilateral organisations, agreements, protocols and treaties which determine the decisions and also influence the decision-making processes. I am rather surprised that why a single case is being referred to, because as far as India is concerned, we have our Patents Act which has been amended twice after the TRIPS Agreement was concluded and the last amendment was in the year 2005. So, Indian Patents Laws are fully aligned with the TRIPS Agreement and the Patents Laws of all the other countries. Now, when we talk of this particular case, I would refer to the Section 3D of the Patents Act which has prescribed that there has to be a higher standard when it comes to invention for patents. Now, it was a process of adjudication where the registrar of patents or the examiner, the controllers, in very detailed orders gave the reasons for denial because we, our law, does not accept ever-greening. That is an incremental approach of an existing molecule or medicine unless and until there is enhanced efficacy. Now, this went through, later through an appellate process of Intellectual Property Appellate Board and I would like for the benefit of everyone to know that Intellectual Property Appellate Board is an authority which is entirely independent of government and which is chaired by a judge. So, it's the Indian judiciary is independent and very assertive. Then it went to a high court where a division bench upheld the original order as well as the order of the appellate authority. It finally came to the highest court of adjudication, that's the Supreme Court of India, which has examined the patents' law, the TRIPS Agreement and the reasons for the denial which are absolutely justified under the laws. I would also like to mention that Novartis as such has no reason to complain on this matter because it's not an executive decision or a government decision. The government of India would never be in a position to interfere with judicial processes. We respect the independence of our judiciary and there's no way that in a constitutional democracy the governments or administration can dictate to the judiciary. Lastly, Novartis is the third largest beneficiary of the registration of patents in India. We have the first three and I can share with you, Roche has 166 patents registered of pharmaceuticals. So, Nofi has 159, Novartis has 147. So, when we are talking of one where the Supreme Court of India and the judiciary through various appellate processes have said that it is not at all justified, it is not a patentable medicine because it is when we talk of the medicine as such which has been refused patent, it's a minor increment or addition is not enhanced efficacy of the medicine which has been scientifically proved.