Indian generics makers claim victory in anaemia drug patent feud
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Indian generics makers claim victory in anaemia drug patent feud

Generic drug.jpg

The Delhi High Court said third parties who use different processes to make a patented product can’t be restricted if the plaintiff’s registration covers a product-by-process patent

The Delhi High Court has denied Swedish drug maker Vifor Pharma’s application to prevent four Indian companies from launching generic versions of its iron-deficiency anaemia drug.

Justice Jyoti Singh ruled on Monday, July 24, that a drug patent only covering process claims could not be used to restrict third parties who derived the same compound through different methods.

The decision marks the first time the court has delved into what constitutes a product-by-process claim.

Vifor had claimed that its patent covered a product featuring ‘ferric carboxymaltose’ (FCM) as well as a process to prepare it. The Swedish drugmaker sells its FCM products in India under the brand names Ferinject, Injectafer and Revofer.

The company argued that its patent was actually for a product even though it described a process. Therefore, irrespective of the defendants’ process, any FCM production would infringe its patent.

However, defendants Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, MSN Laboratories, Corona Remedies, and Virchow Biotech claimed that Vifor’s invention was limited to a product obtained through the specific process mentioned in its patent application.

The court sided with the defendants and found that Vifor’s claims covered a product-by-process patent. It said the process terms were limitations to, and not additional features of, the rights granted to the company.

The court held that Corona and Virchow's products were different from Vifor’s and not infringing. It also found that the processes claimed by Dr Reddy’s and MSN were outside the scope of Vifor’s process and so were also non-infringing.

Corona had already placed its product on the market in 2020. This week’s decision paves the way for the other three companies to launch their products before Vifor’s patent expires in October.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
Gift this article