 So Catherine says for intellectual property watch, I just would like to know why now, why did India didn't access the protocol before and which areas of industry will benefit the most in India from the accession? This is for the registration of the trademarks and after accession it will be useful for the Indian companies filing one common application here and that will automatically get transmitted to all the member countries and the trademarks will be registered. Similarly the same benefit and dispensation will be available to the concerned industries who wish to register their trademarks by making one application one fee. So you do not have to go through multiple applications to all the countries, get the translations in different languages. So it is facilitation for the industry, it would be useful, it works both ways for all the member countries including the Indian industry. And there is always a time, it is not a question of why now, we have a process that once we took the decision, a political decision to sign the protocol and to exceed to it, then we had to amend the trademarks act and we had to go to the parliament, it had to be debated, voted and after that once that process was completed, the legislative process accordingly we informed the Waipo and today we have submitted the documents, those are the instruments of accession to the protocol. Swiss radio followed by Jamil Denda. Katya share on Swiss radio and television. My question is I have to go back to the Novartis case with the rejection of the patent for Glyvik. The reproach was made to Indian authorities that they were overly protectionist and that their protection of their own pharmaceutical industry was at the expense of foreign innovation. What do you answer through that? 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 recognized globally making a notable contribution even when it comes to the registration of drugs or patents. So in an environment or ecosystem, we are countries engaged with each other. We have multilateral organizations, 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 Patentship. 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 evergreening. 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 judicature 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, Sonofi 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 from imatinib and imatinib missile aid. It is beta crystallization form that is all what it is all about so we have to respect the judicial verdict which is based on law which is based on facts which is based on science. When we this question is being put to me I would like a counter question that why we are not being respected for having granted 147 patents to the same company rather than when the Indian judiciary has denied one. I apologize with all due respect it's not only one case we have Merck, we have Roche, we have Bayer they all have patent denied well. Now Bayer is not patent denied that's wrong your understanding of this that particular matter is not correct it's not a denial of patent. It was again through a process of adjudication where an Indian pharmaceutical company had first applied under the law the patent holder to produce the medicine a medicine which is used for cancer treatment a medicine which was costing per month per patient 288,000 rupees and after it went through year long hearings and adjudication process where again it is not the government decision. It was a compulsory license which was given to Natco to make the same medicine which brought down the cost of treatment per month from 288,000 to 8,800 and soon thereafter other multinational companies drop the prices to compete with that price and bringing it below the compulsory licensing Natco price this is a matter of fact and record compulsory licensing is entirely legitimate and in conformity with the TRIPS agreement of the WTO. India has never embarked on the executive route though that is available to all sovereign governments. Executive authority has been used by even by developed countries they have been more than 160 times that the compulsory licenses have been granted by countries more than 63 times by through the executive route but India has never done it even this case the compulsory licensing was not an executive decision of the government which should be made absolutely clear this is a flexibility which is available to countries under law I would also like to quickly mention here that even after the compulsory licensing under the law the royalty is available to bears so it is not that they have been denied the royalty in any manner and if we are if anybody's case is that India has ever violated the multilateral treaty or its international obligations the answer is a firm no have we been as a nation state have we done anything which is unprecedented which is incorrect the answer is no India is committed to protect intellectual property but at the same time when the multilateral agreements provide a balance to be created when it comes to national health emergencies or affordable health care nations have taken decisions other countries have taken before us as I mentioned using executive authority this is going to be my last question sorry without sticking to one specific case don't enter into a debate and never answer more than one question from one journalist I've answered two of yours journalists from Brazil I was going to ask more than one question but now okay ask me to thank you the first question is whether you think there is any possibility of your decision not your decision the decision of the Supreme Court regarding Novartis having a impact in other emerging countries such as Brazil if there would be an effect also let's say some kind of consequence that countries would repeat this decision and secondly on trade if you may do you think there is any room for perhaps a bigger trade agreement between Brazil and India and what are the obstacles for that you see first of all about this particular development as I said it's a judicial pronouncement and it is being debated discussed and slowly there is a greater clarity and understanding if you read the writings in the international press not Indian press yes Indian press they have been editorial is very well informed and nobody can say that the Supreme Court has been dictated a decision they have given a verdict or the Indian media can be dictated their editorial but the international press if you read the global press including the editorial in the international Herald Tribune it is laudatory of the Indian Supreme Court judgment and they say it has created a very healthy precedent which other countries need to seriously look at as to what is patentable and what is not patentable under law so that is exactly where we are now when it comes to the issue of affordable healthcare just for the benefit of everyone here we it's true that India is the largest producer of generics medicines of the world but the generics are not imitations they are effective treatments it's using different processes and we are exporter of generic medicines to all the countries all regions of the world and the biggest importer of Indian generics or where the largest exports are made of Indian generics is definitely the leader of the developed nations the United States of America we are separately of a pharmaceutical industry after the US companies more than the European companies have the highest number of registrations Indian medicines after with the federal drugs authority I would like to add since the friend from Brazil has asked this question in the year 2007 there was a decision made under the same CL there's the flexibility under the TRIPS agreement by the Brazilian government and president Lula was concerned about the availability of a anti-retroviral where the Merck patent was involved and use the compulsory license where again it was an Indian pharmaceutical company which was asked to make that particular anti-retroviral which is life saving last year around the same time when this bears question which was raised here within two weeks of that for a breast cancer drug Indian pharmaceutical company was given the order the Sun Pharma to make this generic name is lipo docs and the original name of the medicine was the clock doxil doxil on 13th of March this year again the orders have been placed through executive authority on Indian pharmaceutical industry to make anti-cancer generic medicines available so I hope the governments whether rich countries or poor countries when it comes to life-threatening diseases and affordability of the medicines that's why when these multilateral treaties were negotiated flexibilities were put in but I as I've said I repeat we are not going to do anything ever as a sovereign nation which will find us in even remotely in breach we have never been we shall never be on the question of Brazil and India well the trade and investment between the two countries is good we are together partner countries in the very important initiative between three continents three emerging economies and three vibrant democracies called Ipsa and the next summit India will be hosting the Ipsa summit in June together we are member of the BRICS coalition but bilaterally their institutional linkages and the strategic partnership which in fact is multi-sectoral but embraces all critical sectors when it comes to technology energy renewable energies space nuclear sciences and beyond we are also besides being engaged by literally we have a PTA with the Markosur group of countries which now India and Markosur group of countries are currently engaged in revising it and making it more robust minister Daniel Proust and with BNA you largely answered the question I wanted to ask but I wanted to follow up just a little bit on the Novartis case as you mentioned India is itself the Indian pharmaceutical industry is becoming a very innovative and requesting more patents for the protection of medicines apart from the the question of whether the Supreme Court was right or wrong in its decision do you think this ruling hasn't will have an impact on the willingness of foreign pharmaceutical companies to invest in India and perhaps help the Indian industry build up its innovative capacity and director general do you have any views on whether this court ruling is help or hindrance to innovation thank you let me minister just quickly dispose of my side of the question no you see as I said it has gone through four processes it's not one Supreme Court is the highest court since all the four verdicts have justified the refusal of patent registration we cannot question the collective wisdom of all the judicial authorities who have knowledge of the subject knowledge of size molecules what enhancement or increment was made and therefore we as a government normally never comment when a matter is sub-judice and accept the verdict of the highest court of the land that is what mature democracies do it would be irresponsible on the part of executive to question well-informed judicial verdicts on matters where larger public interest or the intellectual property related complex legal matters are involved I don't see that it is going to be dissuading the multinationals from investing in R&D first India is itself investing more in R&D if you heard me inside we're setting up a innovation fund we doubling the state's contribution to R&D and innovation we have set up a innovation council we have a decade of innovation so there is much innovation which is going on in India which is patentable and we are very much particular to protect the intellectual property because there's a lot of intellectual property which is coming out of India too and which is very well documented and globally acknowledged but I say that if I have to go by the numbers they will look at the first 147 patents registered and granted not look at one which is rightfully denied. Thanks Tom Miles from Reuters you said that India would never do anything that would put it in breach of the rules and you also said you reserve your right to take an executive decision in future it's again not if other countries have done it we as a sovereign have the same right. Right well there's talks that the department of industrial policy and promotion could be considering revoking compulsory license on three more drugs so can you say anything about that is that possible? You see when anthrax care came when avian flu came when plague scare came please go through the list of countries which invoked the compulsory licensing through executive orders after the signing of the TRIPS agreement please go through the chart which were the countries which invoked executive authority for compulsory licensing so far it in the realm of speculation but it is a flexibility which has been negotiated and integral to the TRIPS agreement there is no reason why a developing country or other developing countries if there is a epidemic if there is a life-threatening disease to make available the affordable medicines but as until now we have not used the executive authority so that I hope answers the question. So if this question has to be put in a correct perspective that whether compulsory licensing is an extraordinary step the answer is no whether it is violative of the TRIPS agreement the answer is no whether it is allowed or permissible under the TRIPS agreement of the WTO answer is yes whether other countries have invoked it the answer is yes therefore why look only at India I am surprised that this question was not put when rich countries invoked compulsory licensing thank you. Sorry just to follow up the reason to look at India is because you are the gentleman from India who happens to be in front of me today so that is why I am asking the question but I mean if pharmaceutical companies are worried about Indian policy then you know me saying are you saying that you will or you will not use the executive right in the future you say you are not giving any hint that you won't use it you are leaving wide open the door. I am quite surprised that you are asking me that what is available under the multilateral agreements would you use it or not if a situation were to present itself where public health is threatened any country would do it even without the TRIPS agreement nations have a right to do it but so far we have not but we are very much within our rights to invoke what has been invoked by others I am rather surprised that why this question is being this issue gets agitated when it comes to a country like India we when you look at the huge disparities of incomes in the country this country it is $83,000 per capita income annually the United States of America is $48,000 in India it is $1,489 so can my citizen afford what even in America the public health system thinks that is unaffordable and therefore they place order for generics alternatives so it is a question is that what is being done is being done correctly so if it is looking at India I have given the numbers that it is not a denial we are not in breach and therefore what we are doing is absolutely correct and I cannot decide for future I am not somebody who is a fortune teller that tomorrow whether there will be another new strain of avian flu will come or there will be another pandemic which will require interventions of the states I give you one example of what the Indian generics have done this was a ethical debate which was joined in the mid 90s when Nelson Mandela was the president of South Africa and Kosa Zana Zuma was the health minister when the cost of treatment went of anti-retrovirals per patient was $13,000 for one year Indian generics arrival changed the discourse and they brought it down to $1100 today it is less than a dollar a day so what is good to allow people to die or to make the medicine available that is a larger question. Assis Mourir, the economic value of Sao Paulo. Minister the BRICS countries are more and more important in the world economy and the global trade has BRICS a common candidate for WTO and why if he has or not. Well I would say that India feels that WTO is a very important institution particularly when it comes to rule based multilateral trading system the process of the selection of the new DG is currently on we do feel that it is high time that the developing countries also have more voice and therefore it would be ideal if a developing country candidate is also considered beyond that I would not like to make the task of our ambassadors and other people more complicated the process of selection is on it would be most inappropriate for me as a minister to make a specific comment. I have two questions. Why BRICS have never a common position. When there is a selection in international organization. I don't think that is the case I was there at the BRICS summit and we have discussed it and the rest is you wait. Everything is not you are a journalist you know sometimes what we talk behind closed doors we do not come out making announcements it's a considered view that developing countries must also have their fair share because they are candidates from many countries both developed and developing therefore I cannot go beyond that. Last question Ravi. Minister my name is Ravi Khan your answers on CL are very encouraging and positive in the sense that there is some kind of a paradigm shift which is in this organization and in this part of the western world compulsory license is treated as a weapons of mass destruction I mean not and it's time that somebody like you actually you know put this view which you have done very eloquently and effectively today namely that CL is also there for addressing public health causes thank you. Is it time that the developing countries sort of put across this view that the CL is not a weapon of weapons of mass destruction but rather surprised that those who are well informed of the history of the negotiations and the flexibility of CL in the TRIPS agreement of the WTO are pretending ignorance about it if one is not aware of what the WTO TRIPS agreement is I can fairly understand and sympathize but if that history is known and this is a document which is in public domain anybody can press the button and you do a Google search and you will find the TRIPS agreement and the history of the negotiations and who said what in the negotiations and also who has invoked it so it's all in public domain there is today's world of technology has made it easier for everyone. Mr. Mantriji, a question, the Swiss press have been writing reports that Switzerland should go to the WTO against this Gleavec ruling together with other countries do you think they are dreaming or do you think there could be cause for that? We have great respect for every partner country and I think wisdom and mature approach surely would influence and there is neither any ground nor any justification to question something which is integral to the multilateral agreement which is also adjudicated by the various appellate quotes. I don't think that there is any reason. So these comments I cannot comment whether they are authorized or not it would be most unfortunate if such a step is ever envisaged. Thank you very much.