The readers of Spicy IP, who have been following the developments in the matter of F. Hoffmann La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (reported earlier here, here and here) , may be interested to know that the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court has at last pronounced his verdict in this case. As per preliminary reports received, Roche’s patent of Erlotinib has been declared to be a valid one, while Cipla has been acquitted of the charge of having violated Roche’s patent, which essentially means that both the suit and the counter-claim have been dismissed. As soon as a copy of the original judgment is available, the Spicy IP team shall provide an appropriate analysis of the entire order as a whole. Till then, we’d request our regular readers to kindly bear with us through what appears to be one of the turning points of yet another high-profile patent litigation.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Let's see if Prashant Reddy can come up with the analysis considering it would be a longish judgment.
Hi Anon,
I used to be one of the counsels in the case, a few years ago, so I would rather not analyze this judgment. We have several other bloggers who are more than up to the task.
Cheers,
Prashant
By reading few news headlines, the Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that Roche's patent is valid but not infringed by Cipla.
It seems to be that the Delhi High Court validated 2009 Justice Muralidhar ridiculous and technically flawed judgment that polymorph can circumvent drug compound (per se) patent. If this same reasoning is used to conclude non-infringement then I pity about sorry state of affairs our judiciary is in patent matters.
Indian "patents" are now becoming useless and judiciary is more or less like UPA government - paralyzed in thought process.
Varun: Could you please provide a reference to the 2009 judgment you are referring to? I think I missed following this case.
Hey Kshitij it seems to be I erred writing 2009 instead of 2008.
Actually Varun, there was a judgment in 2009: http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SMD/judgement/25-04-2009/SMD24042009FAOOS1882008.pdf
Thanks Prashant. I too was referring to same judgment but was confused with the year of judgment.
Post a Comment