{"id":31117,"date":"2021-05-26T12:25:25","date_gmt":"2021-05-26T06:55:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/?p=31117"},"modified":"2021-05-26T12:26:33","modified_gmt":"2021-05-26T06:56:33","slug":"landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Learn about the Landmark judgements on Patent in India"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">Patent protection is undoubtedly the foremost priority for any organisation because it can keep them ahead of rivals and reaps stable income for years to come. But somehow, some patents stumble upon unexpected litigations that costconsiderable time and money for companies. In this article, we have curated a list of Landmark judgement on the patent that not only created the buzz in the legal domain but also leave a lasting impact on the constitutional framework of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title ez-toc-toggle\" style=\"cursor:pointer\">Page Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 eztoc-toggle-hide-by-default' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#F_Hoffmann-La_Roche_Ltd_vsCipla_Ltd\" >F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vsCipla Ltd.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#Novartis_AG_vs_Union_of_India\" >Novartis AG vs Union of India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#Bajaj_Auto_Ltd_vsTvs_Motor_Company_Ltd\" >Bajaj Auto Ltd. vsTvs Motor Company Ltd<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#Glochem_Industries_Ltd_vsCadila_Healthcare_Ltd\" >Glochem Industries Ltd vsCadila Healthcare Ltd<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#Strix_Ltd_v_Maharaja_Appliances_Ltd\" >Strix Ltd v Maharaja Appliances Ltd<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#Bayer_Corporation_Anrvs_Union_of_India_Ors\" >Bayer Corporation &amp;Anrvs Union of India &amp;Ors<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgement-on-patent-in-india\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"F_Hoffmann-La_Roche_Ltd_vsCipla_Ltd\"><\/span>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vsCipla Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Two pharmaceutical giants, viz\nOSI Pharmaceuticals &amp; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., have filed the petition\nfor a permanent injunction of the drug due to patent violation, rendition of\ndamages, accounts, and delivery against Cipla Ltd. Mumbai. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Indian drug producer Cipla won the Landmark judgement against Roche in Delhi High court over the generic version of cancer treatment drug Erlotinib. The case was unique as it is the first Patent litigation in the country, which included pricing issues and public interest that prevent evergreening of the patent.<\/li><li>In 2008, Roche sued Cipla before <em><strong>Delhi High Court<\/strong><\/em><sup><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court\"><em><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/sup>, appealing that the generic product Erlocip infringes erstwhile Indian 774 patent claiming &#8220;Erlotinib Hydrocloride&#8221;. However, the trial judge rejects the petition to bestow injunction preventing Cipla from selling a cheap version of Tarceva on account of public interest and ongoing patent proceedings against 774 patent. Cipla&#8217;s cheap version of the drug costs around 1\/3 of Roche&#8217;s patented medicine.&nbsp;<\/li><li>Roche&#8217;s next petition to the Division bench also rejected in light of the trial judge&#8217;s findings. Also, the Court imposed a cost on Roche for suppression of information about the subsequently filed application in India (IN\/PCT\/2002\/00507\/DEL).<\/li><li>The said patent application was on Polymorph Form B of Erlotinib Hydrocloride, which faces disapproval in 2008 following the petition filed by Cipla on Section 3d. Cipla claimed that Tarceva corresponds to Polymorphic Form B is more stable and apt for oral dosage than the compound available in 774 patent consist of a mixture of Form A and B.<\/li><li>Before the Supreme Court (SC), Roche&#8217;s next petition against an order issued by the division bench got disapproved due to ongoing trial at the Delhi High Court.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/landmark-judgments-on-ipr-law-in-india\/\">Landmark Judgments on IPR Law in India<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Novartis_AG_vs_Union_of_India\"><\/span>Novartis AG vs Union of India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Yet another Landmark judgement of the <a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/patent-registration\"><strong>patent in India<\/strong><\/a> created a lot of buzz in the drug manufacturing domain. This time Swiss Drug manufacturer Novartis faces rejection from the patent authority in the light of &#8216;unconstitutional&#8217; patent law practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Swiss giant seeks a patent for its cancer drug, Glivec, but the government revoked their appeal on the ground of the following facts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"997\" height=\"385\" src=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Novartis-AG-vs-Union-of-India.png\" alt=\"Novartis AG vs Union of India\" class=\"wp-image-31153\" srcset=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Novartis-AG-vs-Union-of-India.png 997w, https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Novartis-AG-vs-Union-of-India-300x116.png 300w, https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Novartis-AG-vs-Union-of-India-768x297.png 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 997px) 100vw, 997px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, the Swiss\nmanufacturer decided to sue the constitutionality of section 3(d) in the High\nCourt, which was rejected in due consideration of the above grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Bajaj_Auto_Ltd_vsTvs_Motor_Company_Ltd\"><\/span>Bajaj Auto Ltd. vsTvs Motor Company Ltd<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case of Bajaj vs. TVS\nMotor talks about the disagreement related to the unauthorized patent&#8217;s\napplication of the DTSi (Digital Twin Spark Ignition). The case is vital on the\ngrounds of the parties&#8217; financial stakes and application of the pith &amp;\nmarrow doctrine. This case is unique as it takes Doctrine of Equivalent into\naccount. Above all, the principles available in finalizing the decision are\nalso crucial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Glochem_Industries_Ltd_vsCadila_Healthcare_Ltd\"><\/span>Glochem Industries Ltd vsCadila Healthcare Ltd<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In a recent judgement, the\nBombay High Court took validity of pre-grant opposition into account and\nannounced that a new form of a prevailing substance could not come under the\npatent&#8217;s regime unless its claims surpass prior art to ensure the different or\nenhancing effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Glochem Industries filed a\npetition before the Court after its pre-grant opposition to Cadila&#8217;s patent\napplication was disapproved by the patent authority. Glochem&#8217;s primary concerns\nwere that the patent claim didn&#8217;t adhere to novelty and lacked enhancing\ntherapeutic effect, as per section 25(1) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents\nAct.<\/li><li>According to Glochem, Cadillac\nhad failed to provide substantial evidence before Court that the new form of\nsubstance enhances the therapeutic efficacy. The company also claimed that the\ndisapproval of the patent&#8217;s controller&#8217;s opposition resulted from\nmisconstruction and misapplication of the provisions under Section 3(d) of the\nAct. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>This conflict revolves around\nthe substance called clopidogrelbesylate, a salt derived from clopidogrel,\nwhich is already patented in the United States<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After prolonged deliberations,\nBombay High Court opined that the Golcem&#8217;s erstwhile actions to restrain the\nopposition could act as grounds for litigation.&nbsp;Further, the Court cited\nthat the alleged misrepresentation by the patent controller could solidify the\ncase.Hence, the Court decided to hold the order and directed the authority to\nreconsider the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Strix_Ltd_v_Maharaja_Appliances_Ltd\"><\/span>Strix Ltd v Maharaja Appliances Ltd<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court granted\ntemporary prohibition on the marketing and manufacturing of Maharaja\nAppliances&#8217; electric kettle Model No EK 172 due to infringement of Strix&#8217;s\npatent (IN 1,92,511, US 6,080,968). The decisions were based on the following\nobservations made by the Court on why the Indian manufacturer failed to\ndischarge its burden of raising a &#8216;creditable challenge&#8217; to Strix&#8217;s patent\nvalidity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The defendant failed to\npresent some acceptable scientific material, supported by the expert&#8217;s\nexplanation that the patent is prima facie susceptible to cancellation.The\nburden of proof was greater on the defendant as there was no history of Strix&#8217;s\npatent being challenged in the Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Bayer_Corporation_Anrvs_Union_of_India_Ors\"><\/span>Bayer Corporation &amp;Anrvs Union of India &amp;Ors<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Yet another Landmark judgement\nthat has resonated strongly in the legal domain for years. Instead of filing a\npetition for infringement, Bayer Corporation filed a writ appeal in the Delhi\nHigh court requesting an injunction on Cipla&#8217;s marketing approval application\nin light of the violation caused by their version of the drug, viz SORANIB. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>This appeal was one of its\nkind because it links drug approval to patent infringement in India.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In response, The Delhi High\nCourt refused to stamp their approval on such appeal and eventually imposed a\ncost of Rs 6,75,000 on the plaintiff to prevent future occurrence of such\nactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Bayer argues that section 2 of\nthe Drugs and Cosmetic Act, in association with Section 48 of the (Indian)\nPatent Act, 1970, set up a patent linkage mechanism that prevents anyone from\ntaking marketing approval for a drug over a patented drug. The company also\nclaimed that the CIPLA&#8217;s &#8220;SORANIB&#8221; is a &#8220;Spurious Drug&#8221; as\nmentioned under the Drugs Act.<\/li><li>The High Court of Delhi, in\nits judgement, clarified that the Drug- Patent Linkage mechanism is an\nimpractical thing as both the Act excels on specific objectives and rights to\ncheck the patent standard is with the regime of patent&#8217;s controller.\nFurthermore, such linkage may have a drastic impact on the nation&#8217;s public\nhealth policy.<\/li><li>The Court further added that\nmarket approval of drug has nothing to take with patent infringement. Hence,\npatent infringement cannot come to effect unless it is established in a court\nof law. Such adjudication is beyond the scope of Drug Authorities&#8217; jurisdiction.\nThis is indeed the Landmark judgement when it comes to legal and judicial\ncomplexity. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Securing the patent in India is somewhat challenging, considering leverage available within ourlegal framework. The Landmark judgements above have made it evident that clarity on the applicable law is imperative for the plaintiff before filing petition against the the defaulter for patent protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/list-of-important-judgments-under-trademark-that-you-must-know\/\">List of Important Judgments under Trademark that You Must Know! <\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patent protection is undoubtedly the foremost priority for any organisation because it can keep them ahead of rivals and reaps stable income for years to come. But somehow, some patents stumble upon unexpected litigations that costconsiderable time and money for companies. In this article, we have curated a list of Landmark judgement on the patent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":31152,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[282],"tags":[1771],"acf":{"service_id":"20"},"authorName":"Pankaj Tyagi","authorImageUrl":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-42.jpg","authorDescription":"Pankaj has a diverse experience of writing research papers, blog, and articles during his college time. Earlier, he was working as a tax consultant in a financial firm, but his interest in writing drives him to pursue a career in the writing field.","postViews":7540,"readingTime":5,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31117"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31117"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31117\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31154,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31117\/revisions\/31154"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}