NCLAT: IRP Has Authority to Take Possession of Assets Owned by Corporate Debtor  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Direct Forwarding a Copy of its Order to Relevant Statutory Authorities  ||  Delhi HC: Centre to Expedite Process of Accessibility Features in OTT platforms for PwDs  ||  Delhi HC: Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath ‘Burden of Proof’ Shifts on Employer  ||  SC: There Cannot be Discrimination in Matter of Payment of Pension to Retired Judges  ||  SC: India is Not a Dharamshala that Can Entertain Foreign Nationals from All Over  ||  SC: Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Under Section 482 of CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Use Statement of One Accused against Another  ||  SC: Inclusion of Name in Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal’s Declaration as Non-Citizen  ||  Supreme Court: Minimum Practice of 3 Years Mandatory to Enter Judicial Service    

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