Indian generics makers claim victory in anaemia drug patent feud

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Arrival of Laura Alonso, alongside a team of 11, will bring ‘significant value’ to ECIJA clients, says CEO
In the first of a two-part article, lawyers at Spruson & Ferguson and Marshall Gerstein provide an overview of China’s system for appealing against patent invalidation decisions
Lawyers and corporate leaders at INTA’s Business of M&A conference in New York discussed how cross-practice collaboration and early in-house involvement can help deals
Lily Li, partner at Morrison Foerster, shares how her litigation team helped secure victory at the ITC in a patent infringement case
Top talking points also included news of an appellate ruling concerning ‘Pisco’ and Indian drugmakers gearing up to launch generic versions of Ozempic as Novo Nordisk’s patent expires
Gift this article