The Novartis ceo says he will switch hundreds of millions of dollars in planned investments from India to other locations, primarily, China, in the next few years in response to an Indian court ruling that he says weakens intellectual property rights on new meds.

In an interview with The Financial Times following the rejection this month of his bid to protect the patent on the Gleevec cancer med, Vasella says “concrete plans” for investments in research in India stalled during the trial and Novartis will now go elsewhere. The decision comes at a sensitive time for drugmakers in Asia, with many hesitating between India and China as an investment location against a backdrop of patent uncertainties, the Times notes.

“This (ruling) is not an invitation to invest in Indian research and development, which we would have done,” he tells the paper. “We will invest more in countries where we have protection. It’s not a punishment. It’s just a question of the culture for investment. Do you buy a house if you know people will break in and sleep in your bedroom?”

Which types of investment will be reduced? Dan isn’t specific. Interestingly, he doesn’t address the issue of whether Novartis will somehow refrain from selling its meds in India. Of course, Novartis is already expanding in China, as are most drugmakers, despite concerns over corruption and quality control.

India has enjoyed an upturn in investment by some drugmakers - including several fast-growing Indian groups - following the introduction of tougher patent rules in 2005, matched by strong market growth and the presence of skilled and affordable doctors and researchers. However, other international drugmakers have so far held back or made larger investments elsewhere in Asia, notably in China and Singapore, spurred by stronger legal protection.

Novartis had appealed against an earlier Indian ruling to reject patents on Gleevec. The court argued that “incremental innovation” didn’t qualify it as a new chemical entity justifying protection. The drugmaker says the interpretation violated World Trade Organization agreements and would be a disincentive for investment because much innovation occurs through incremental research.

The case became a rallying point for non-governmental organizations, which mounted a campaign against Novartis to drop the legal action. Campaigners argued that tougher patent rules were undermining India’s pivotal role in providing cheap medicines for the developing world through its low-cost generic drugs industry.

Vasella says he had no plans for a fresh appeal against the court ruling, arguing it was a matter for the WTO.

“This [ruling] is not an invitation to invest in Indian research and development, which we would have done. We will invest more in countries where we have protection. It’s not a punishment. It’s just a question of the culture for investment. Do you buy a house if you know people will break in and sleep in your bedroom?”