Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Msn Laboratories Private Limited & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 261 of 2021, CS(COMM) 265 of 2021, CS(COMM) 448 of 2022 and CS(COMM) 450 of 2022
Decided On : 24-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment addressing multiple applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of vifor's patent and commercialization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. patent implementation and sales. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. evidence of infringement by competitors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. arguments presented by vifor regarding patent claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. supportive evidence for vifor’s claims. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. arguments against the robustness of the patent claims. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. counterarguments and defenses claimed by the defendants. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. legal principles regarding product-by-process claims. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. discussion on the law of patent, prior art and non-infringement. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 11. determination of claim construction in infringement context. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 12. summary of trial court's analysis. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 13. implications of claim construction on patent enforcement. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 14. examination of patent law regarding prior art. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 15. discussion on inn relevant to patent infringement. (Para 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 16. concluding thoughts on patent law and public interest. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 17. last remarks and summary. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
I.A. 7037/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs) in CS(COMM) 261/2021,
I.A. 7138/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs) in CS(COMM) 265/2021
I.A. 10144/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs) in CS(COMM) 448/2022, and
I.A. 10180/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs) in CS(COMM) 450/2022
1. This judgment will dispose of I.A. 7037/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 261/2021, I.A. 7138/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 265/2021 and I.A. 10144/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 448/2022. These applications have been filed by Vifor (International) Limited, Patentee and Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a License Holder. For the ease of reference, Plaintiffs hereinafter are referred to as "Vifor". These suits have been instituted by Vifor against the Defendants i.e. (i) MSN Laboratories Private Limited and (ii) MSN Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "MSN") in CS(COMM) 261/2021; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as "DRL") in CS(COMM) 265/2021; and (i) Corona Remedies Private Limited and (ii) Virchow Biotech Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "CRPL and VBPL") in CS(COMM) 448/2022. I.A. 10180/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(COMM) 450/2022 has been filed by CRPL and VBPL against Vifor (International) Ltd. and Vifor Pharma Pvt. Ltd., seeking interim injunction restraining the Defendants from threatening and hampering the business of CRPL and VBPL, in any manner whatsoever or by taking any coercive action, whether regulatory or legal, against the Plaintiffs therein, in respect of the suit patent.
2. As a prelude to the applications, it may be mentioned that Vifor asserts its right in the Suit Patent No.221536 titled `Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex and A Process For Producing Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex', (hereinafter referred to as "IN'536"), relating to FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE (hereinafter referred to as "FCM"). Since all the suits pertain to alleged infringement and invalidity of IN'536 and the legal issues are inextricably linked, the aforementioned applications are being decided by a common judgment.
FACTS SET OUT IN THE PLAINT IN CS(COMM) 261/2021:
3. Plaintiff No. 1, Vifor (International) Ltd. is a company incorporated in 1991 under the laws of Switzerland and its registered office is in Switzerland. Plaintiff No.2, Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office in
Patent rights for processes do not confer exclusive rights over products derived from those processes, impacting enforcement and claims for injunction.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of maintaining accounts of manufacture and sales in patent infringement cases and highlighted the need to consider the status of the suit patent and the....
Patent infringement requires the plaintiff to prove unauthorized use of a patented process, while the validity of the patent must meet criteria of novelty, description, and utility.
Amendment of claims from ‘product by process’ claims to ‘process’ claims is permissible under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, subject to certain conditions.
The scope of an invention is defined and determined by the granted claims.
Amendments to patent claims are permissible to restrict claims as long as they remain within the scope of the original specification, supporting both clarity and legal compliance under Section 59.
The scope of patent claims is defined by the claims themselves; any pharmaceutical composition containing the claimed ingredients constitutes infringement, regardless of the specific formulation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
