Supreme Court Explains 7 Sub-Rights that Must be Protected by State During Land Acquisition  ||  SC: Accused Can’t be Arrested by ED After Special Court has Taken Cognizance of PMLA Complaint  ||  SC: Employees Filing Writ Petitions Against Air India After its Privatisation, Not Maintainable  ||  SC: UP Anti-Conversion Law May Seem to be Violating Article 25 of Constitution of India  ||  SC: UP Anti-Conversion Law May Seem to be Violating Article 25 of Constitution of India  ||  Kerala High Court: Power to Add Charges Remains With Court, Can’t be Done at Behest of Parties  ||  Allahabad High Court: Can’t Allow Petition for Expeditious Disposal of Cases on Regular Basis  ||  SC: Can’t Consider Payment of Compensation A Factor to Reduce Sentence of Convict  ||  SC: No Need for PMLA Acc. to Fulfill S. 45 Conditions When Furnis. Bond After Appearing Before Court  ||  Plea to Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy Dismissed, SC Talks About Right to Life of Child in Womb    

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and anr v. Cipla Ltd - (High Court of Delhi) (27 Nov 2015)

High Court finds in favour of Hoffmann-La Roche

Intellectual Property Rights

The Delhi High Court allowed La Roche’s appeal for grant of injunction against Cipla with regard to infringement of patent, ‘IN ’774’, which was claimed to be an inventive and innovative development which increased the efficacy of the drug. As the court summarised it, “In the atomic world it would be the party animal, latching on to any atom it finds around it, including itself, and holding tight, forming molecular change – the very trick of nature necessary to build proteins and DNA.” It imposed costs and directed Cipla to render accounts for the manufacture and sale of ‘Erlocip’, a drug used in cancer treatment. However, while the grant of injunction was agreed with, the Court, mindful of the patent expiring in March, 2016, refused to enforce the same.

Tags : PATENT   LA ROCHE   CIPLA   INVENTIVENESS   OBVIOUSNESS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved