- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Gilead's plea over issuance of CL on remdesivir, got rejected by Russian Supreme Court
Gilead's plea over issuance of CL on remdesivir, got rejected by Russian Supreme Court Russia's Supreme Court rejected US company Gilead Sciences lawsuit challenging the Russian government's decision for development and marketing anti-covid-19 drug remdesivir with the consent of Gilead. Pharmasyntez, a Russian drug maker has been granted a compulsory license by the Russian government...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Gilead's plea over issuance of CL on remdesivir, got rejected by Russian Supreme Court
Russia's Supreme Court rejected US company Gilead Sciences lawsuit challenging the Russian government's decision for development and marketing anti-covid-19 drug remdesivir with the consent of Gilead.
Pharmasyntez, a Russian drug maker has been granted a compulsory license by the Russian government to manufacture the drug under various names without Gilead's consent.
This move was in the interest of Russia's security, which the government said in the decree. The decree also stated the government's compensation to the patent-holder but did not specify the amount.
Pharmasyntez asked Kremlin to allow for producing the generic version of remdesivir before the issuance of the decree. It produces remdesivir under the name of Remdeform, a shipment of which has been arrived in India as a part of humanitarian aid.
Disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court's ruling and calling the issuance of a compulsory license as "unnecessary and counterproductive," it said, "...We have stood ready to work with Russia to expand access to Veklury (remdesevir) since mid-2020. Intellectual property is not, and has never been, a significant barrier to access to medicines in Russia."
It said it believed the original Russian government decision fell short "of the requirements of Russian law." While criticizing what it called inconsistency in the Russian government's pricing policy, it said it had maintained remdesevir supplies to all eligible patients in Russia.