Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved