Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against BCCI Team Named 'Team India', Terms it a Sheer Waste of Time  ||  Bombay HC: No Absolute Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices  ||  Delhi HC: Suit Withdrawal After Compromise Doesn’t Result in Executable Decree  ||  Delhi HC: ITSC Abolition Doesn’t Void Settlement Pleas Filed Between Feb 1–Mar 31, 2021  ||  Rajasthan HC: State Must Set Up Trauma Centre, Art Institute; Temple Board Can Only Assist  ||  Kerala HC: LIC Cancer Cover Starts From First Diagnosis After Waiting Period, Not Expert Opinion  ||  Kerala HC: Spouse’s Ill Treatment of Children is Cruelty under Section 10(1) Divorce Act  ||  Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Sentenced to Death in Child Rape-Murder Case  ||  SC: Only Disclosure Leading to Weapon Recovery Admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act  ||  Supreme Court Orders Strict Enforcement on Helmets, Lane Discipline & Headlight Use    

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