India

Primary tabs

Caselaw

En marzo de 2008, Bayer HealthCare LLC, una subsidiaria que pertenece totalmente a Bayer Corporation, obtuvo una patente otorgada por la Oficina de Patentes de la India conforme a la ley (Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, DCA9) y las normas (Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, DCR) aplicables para “sorafenib tosylate” (ST), un medicamento usualmente recetado para tratar el cáncer renal avanzado. Posteriormente, Bayer HealthCare LLC cedió sus derechos sobre el medicamento patentado en India a Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”).

En su demanda penal, Chakraborty adujo que comenzó una relación sentimental con Gautam en abril de 1989 mientras él era profesor y ella, estudiante, en el Baptist College de Kohima, Nagaland. Según Chakraborty, Gautam profesó su amor y la engañó para tener relaciones sexuales con afirmaciones falsas, como que se casaría con ella tras obtener el permiso de sus padres.

Miss Chakraborty, in a criminal complaint, alleged that she began an affair in April 1989 with Chakraborty while he was a lecturer and she was a student at Baptist College in Kohima, Nagaland.  She asserted Gautam professed his love and deceived her into sexual intercourse with false assurances that he would marry her after receiving his parents’ consent.

In March 2008, Bayer HealthCare LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, was granted a subject patent by India’s Patent Office, pursuant to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (DCA) and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (DCR),  for “sorafenib tosylate” (ST), commonly prescribed for treatment of advanced renal cancer.  Bayer HealthCare LLC subsequently assigned its titles to the patented drug in India to Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”).

La petición en esta Demanda de Interés Público (PIL) citaba información de los estados de Uttar Pradesh, Bihar y Maharashtra acerca de prácticas gubernamentales sobre esterilización femenina que carecían de la debida consejería o consentimiento informado, y de cuidado pre y post operatorio, e incluían condiciones quirúrgicas antihigiénicas y sin uso de anestesia, esterilización de menores, coerción y crueldad.

The petition in this public interest litigation (PIL) case cited data from the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra, regarding government practices regarding female sterilization, which lacked counseling or informed consent, lacked pre- and post-operative care, and included unhygienic and un-anesthetized operating conditions, sterilization of minors, coercion and cruelty.  The PIL requested the Court to direct the state governments to comply with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Guidelines on Standards of Female Sterilization, enacted in October 1999 (“the Guidelines”).

El caso fue presentado por Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) ante la Corte Constitucional debido a que no se cumplía una sentencia previa que establecía directrices contra el acoso sexual en el lugar de trabajo en la India: Vishaka c./ State of Rajasthan (6SCC 241, 1997). En su decisión de 2012, la Corte Suprema de la India repitió las directrices Vishaka que había emitido en 1997, destacando que se debían tomar

The case was presented by the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) to the Constitutional Court in light of the non-enforcement of a previous decision that established guidelines against sexual harassment at the work place in India: Vishaka vs.

Este caso se presentó en nombre de Shanti Devi, una mujer pobre que pertenecía a una "casta programada" (scheduled caste[1]), después de que muriera como consecuencia de que le fuera negada la asistencia médica durante el embarazo a pesar de que cumplía los requisitos para recibir servicios gratis conforme a los planes estatales

This case was brought on behalf of Shanti Devi, a women living in poverty from a Scheduled Caste, after she died as the result of being refused adequate maternal healthcare despite the fact that she qualified for the free services under existing state-sponsored schemes. In 2008, Shanti Devi was forced to carry a dead fetus in her womb for five days after being denied medical treatment at several hospitals because her husband was unable to show a valid ration card for medical services, despite being qualified for one as they lived below the poverty line.