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

An Australian top court decision clarifying honest concurrent use and wins by publishers against AI platforms were also among the top talking points
AIPPI has pulled the plug on its planned 2027 World Congress, and INTA has delayed hosting a meeting there, but the concerns won’t abate
Despite being outspent by a wealthy opponent, a trial attorney at King & Spalding says ‘relentless pursuit of the truth’ helped his team secure a $420m damages award for mobile gaming client
190 drugs face loss of exclusivity between 2026 and 2030, with the list including Bristol Myers Squibb’s blood-thinning drug Eliquis and immunotherapy medication Opdivo
Nokia, represented by a team from Bird & Bird, adjudged to have made fair offer to Asus and Acer in UK SEP dispute
Azhar Sadique and Kane Ridley, who founded the London office in 2023, are now both working in legal tech and AI-related roles, while another UK-based lawyer has also left
Partner Pierre Pérot rejoins the firm he left in 2022 alongside another returning lawyer, associate Camille Abba
Vaping dispute, in which Stobbs and Brandsmiths are the representatives, tested how the UK's Human Rights Act can apply to injunctions restraining unjustified threats
An AI platform being sold for £40m, and lateral hires involving law firms Womble Bond Dickinson and Cadwell Thomas were among the top talking points
With the London Annual Meeting behind us, we look back at some of the lessons learned this week and ahead to what 2027 will bring
Gift this article