Decisions of the Supreme Court of India relating to patents clearly indicate that the framework of Patent Law in India is utilitarian. Explain.

Novartis AG v Union of India is the landmark judgment given by the two-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this case Novartis challenged the rejection of its patent application by IPAB for Beta crystalline form of "Imatinib mesylate" wherein such challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court of India on the ground that the said drug did not produce an enhanced or superior therapeutic efficacy as compared to the known substance i.e., "Imatinib mesylate" means that the said drug did not involve an inventive step. The judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to prevent the ever-greening of patented products and gives relief to those who can't afford the lifesaving drug as these pharmaceutical companies sell such lifesaving drugs at a very high price hence unaffordable for the common man. In BAYER CORP. V. UNION OF INDIA first compulsory license was issued to create a balance between the welfare of the people and also the economic interests of the country. Following justifications may be culled out from the above analysis of judicial decisions: The object of patent law is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress patent right is justified mainly for reasons of utility; Grant of patent to the inventor in exchange of disclosure of invention to the society to enrich public domain of knowledge and technology - Natural Right justification of patent right is a means to achieve the end of social purpose; and Patent systems are not created in the interest of the inventor but in the interest of national economy.