NextFin

Delhi High Court Allows Natco Pharma to Sell Generic Version of Roche’s Rare Disease Drug in India

Summarized by NextFin AI
  • On October 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Natco Pharma, allowing it to produce a generic version of Roche’s Risdiplam, a drug for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).
  • The court emphasized public interest in affordable medication, as Roche's original drug costs approximately Rs 6.2 lakh, while Natco's version will be priced around Rs 15,900, a nearly 97% reduction.
  • This ruling reflects a balance between patent rights and public health needs, with potential implications for access to rare disease treatments in India.
  • Advocates hailed the decision as a victory for patients, urging the government to procure the generic drug for broader access under the National Policy for Rare Diseases.

NextFin news, On Friday, October 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling allowing Indian pharmaceutical company Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell a generic version of Roche’s rare disease drug, Risdiplam, used to treat spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The court rejected Roche’s appeal to restrain Natco, emphasizing the public interest in affordable access to life-saving medication.

Risdiplam is an oral therapy for SMA, a genetic disorder that causes muscle weakness and wasting, often leading to death in severe cases by age two if untreated. Roche’s patented version of the drug is priced at approximately Rs 6.2 lakh (about USD 6,982) per bottle, making it unaffordable for most patients in India. Natco’s generic version is expected to be priced around Rs 15,900 (approximately USD 179) per bottle, representing a nearly 97% reduction in cost.

The case has been closely watched as a test of balancing patent rights with public health needs. In March 2025, the Delhi High Court had questioned the validity of Roche’s patents on Evrysdi (Risdiplam), noting credible technical arguments by Natco for invalidation and signaling the benefit of a generic alternative to the public. However, the patents themselves, expiring in 2033 and 2035, were not revoked at that time.

Patient advocates and members of the SMA community welcomed the ruling, describing it as a major relief that could improve access to essential treatment. Seba PK, an SMA patient who intervened in the case, highlighted that the decision enables the government to procure the drug under the National Policy for Rare Diseases, potentially providing treatment to many more patients.

Purva Mittal, another intervener representing SMA patients, called the verdict a collective victory prioritizing life and justice over monopolistic practices. The Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment also urged the Indian government to proactively procure the generic drug to ensure equitable access.

Roche had sought to prevent Natco from proceeding with the generic version, citing patent protections. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s stance that public health considerations can take precedence over pharmaceutical patent monopolies, especially for rare and life-threatening diseases.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in India’s ongoing efforts to improve access to affordable medicines for rare diseases, balancing innovation incentives with public health imperatives.

Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.

Insights

What is the significance of the Delhi High Court's ruling for the pharmaceutical industry in India?

How does Risdiplam function as a treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA)?

What are the implications of allowing generic versions of patented drugs on public health?

What challenges do pharmaceutical companies face in balancing patent rights and public health needs?

How does the cost of Roche's Risdiplam compare to Natco's generic version?

What are the potential impacts of this ruling on future drug pricing in India?

How have patient advocates responded to the Delhi High Court's decision?

What role does the National Policy for Rare Diseases play in drug procurement in India?

What are the core arguments presented by Natco Pharma regarding Roche's patents?

How does this case reflect broader trends in global pharmaceutical patent law?

What historical precedents exist regarding generic drugs and patent law in India?

How might this ruling influence other countries facing similar issues with drug accessibility?

What are the potential long-term effects on innovation in the pharmaceutical sector following this decision?

How does the case of Risdiplam illustrate the tension between pharmaceutical monopolies and public health?

What measures can the Indian government take to ensure equitable access to the generic drug?

In what ways could Roche respond to this ruling, and what implications would that have?

How do the expiration dates of Roche's patents affect the landscape for generic drugs in the future?

What are the ethical considerations surrounding drug pricing for rare diseases?

How can other countries learn from India's approach to generic drug production for rare diseases?

What is the role of the judiciary in shaping healthcare policy through cases like this one?

Search
NextFinNextFin
NextFin.Al
No Noise, only Signal.
Open App