P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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