The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to

eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
 The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

v
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42

The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42
The practice of ever greening has anti-competitive effects as it enables the pharmaceutical MNCs to
eliminate competition from the generic manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs
over a prolonged period of time. This in turn is detrimental to public interest since many essential drugs
become inaccessible to the general public on account of prohibitive pricing. It was India’s concern for public
health issues that compelled her to exclude from patentability ‘incremental innovation” or modifications on
existing drug molecules unless they satisfied the enhanced efficacy requirement under Section 3(d). Prior to
India’s membership in the WTO, India had developed a highly successful generic pharmaceutical industry
producing cheaper versions of patented drugs. This became possible on account of its patent regime which
allowed protection only on the process and not the product. After the introduction of patent protection for
products, it was feared that such a move would jeopardize the position of Indian generic drug manufacturers
in the global pharmaceutical market. Moreover, there was growing apprehension that the sharp rise in the
price of life-saving drugs which would take them beyond the reach of common man. By incorporating the
enhanced efficacy requirement in Section 3(d), it sought to allay the fear regarding patent evergreening
through incremental innovation, and at the same time implemented its obligations under TRIPS. 42