김주연선생님, 아래 내용을 글리벡 공대위와 남희섭 변리사에게 전달하였습니다.
————————————————————————————
인도의 Lawyers Collective라는 단체에서 보내온 메일입니다.
글리벡 발제 후 명함과 함께 자료파일을 보내달라고 부탁했었기에 발제문과 글리벡환우회홈페이지를 알려주었었습니다.
인도에서의 특허권 문제 때문에 이들이 나름대로 글리벡에 관해 연구했었고, 독점판매권에 대해 재판을 걸 준비를 하고 있답니다.
아래와 같이 세가지의 구체적인 특허관련 문건을 시급히 알아봐달라고 하는데요,
—원본 메시지—–
보낸 사람: “lawyers” <aidslaw@bom5.vsnl.net.in>
보낸 날짜: 2004-02-20 오후 3:25:12
받는 사람: “mdclara@korea.com” <mdclara@korea.com>
제목: Re: Information of Gleevec
Dera Ms Kim
I am Gopakumar colleguae of Anand Grover. Thank you for your mail. After the WSF we worked on the Gleevec issue. Now we are going to challenge the EMR in Court. We are in the process of finalisation. We need three specific information from you. 1) We need Exhibit No 6 from your your request for a compulsory license.( We got the copy from www.cptech.org) . Secondly we would like to know that when did they do clinical trails for this gleevec in Korea. Thirdly we need an English translation of the Korean patent application. If the patent is filed before 1995 EMR will be revoked. Novartis claim in india is that the 1993 patent is different from the present drug. The present drug they call it beta crystle form of Imatinib mseylate. If we could establish that the 1993 Korean patent covers the present beta crystal form of Imatinib mseylate.The Indian Patent application is filed in 1998 and claimng only beta crystal form of Imatinib mseylate. In other words I would like to know that the Novartis holding a separate patent right other than 1993 application on beta crstal form of Imatinib mseylate. If Novartis does not then we will succeed in our efforts.
Please give me these information as soon as possible.Consider it on a priority basis
With regards
Gopakumar