The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow a lawsuit filed by Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche that sought to restrain Indian drug maker Natco Pharma from manufacturing Risdiplam, an oral medicine for spinal muscular atrophy.

This effectively permits Natco Pharma to manufacture the medicine used in the treatment of the rare disease.

Spinal muscular atrophy is a neuromuscular disorder that causes muscle weakness and atrophy due to the loss of motor neurons in the spinal cord. This leads to muscle movements getting impaired and can potentially affect swallowing and breathing.

Risdiplam, developed by Roche, is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of the disease as it is the first oral therapy for it.

A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna said on Monday that because the drug is not available at an affordable price in India, the public good outweighs the profits of a company.

“A drug which is the only one available for treatment in India, for a rare disease, its availability to the public at large at very economical and competitive prices, is a material factor which a court will consider at the time of dealing with an application for interim injunction,” the bench said.

Pushkarna ruled that while the plaintiffs “can be compensated by the way of damages”, there exists no right for the public “to lessen or compensate itself”.

Roche had alleged that Natco Pharma was planning to commercially manufacture Risdiplam. This would infringe Roche’s Indian patent for Risdiplam that will expire in May 2035, the Swiss firm argued.

The Swiss company had also contended that Natco Pharma’s motive was to only make profits “by imitating” Roche.

Natco Pharma had challenged the validity of Roche’s Indian patent for Risdiplam. The Indian firm claimed that Roche was trying to extend its patent rights unfairly by obtaining a new patent for a specific version of the drug in India without filing the broader original patent, which would expire sooner.

The bench said that Roche was “currently importing the drug in India”, because of which the price of the drug is high.

“Clearly, the plaintiffs’ intention is to monetise the drug,” the judge observed. “Therefore, the plaintiffs can clearly be compensated in damages, if they were to succeed at the end of trial.”