I am a Biotechnology Student in India... Even if the older version exists, pharmaceutical companies have the power to enforce the new drug with their buying power...Pharma Companies gift a lot of doctors with various goodies to enforce the newer version - thus allowing company to make profits....

The Point to be noted here for Developers, Designers and Other Technologists - " Where Do you Draw the line ?"

Novartis might have made a slight modification to the structure of the drug - and thereby requesting patent for the new drug.. The new drug might be more effective or not, they would want to sell it at a premium...So where does one draw a line towards how much of a change is ok for the drug to be accepted as a new drug.. should the change be in effectiveness or structure or something else...

The same question applies to developers and designers - when someone uses their designs or code.. Where do you draw the line ?

In Australia, they're reviewing this area of patent law to see if the parameters are right http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/public-consultations/...

Novartis said in their submission "Generic companies should be able to compete with the original version of the product after expiry of the earlier filed patents. Thus, the scope of those improvement patents must always be narrower than the earlier filed patents so that third parties are normally in a situation to use the older technology after expiry of the earlier filed patents without infringing the follow-on patents" http://pharmapatentsreview.govspace.gov.au/files/2013/01/201...

I'm not a patent lawyer, but I fail to see why this would be the case.

If the old version was held by someone else, would it then also be open for the public ?

As far as I can tell, patents pretty much stand on their own.

Yes.

I don't think they ever had a patent for this drug in India though hence they were already producing a generic version.