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 2025

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

With the US privacy landscape more fragmented and active than ever and federal legislation stalled, lawyers at Sheppard Mullin explain how states are taking bold steps to define their own regimes
Viji Krishnan of Corsearch unpicks the results of a survey that reveals almost 80% of trademark practitioners believe in a hybrid AI model for trademark clearance and searches
News of Via Licensing Alliance selling its HEVC/VCC pools and a $1.5 million win for Davis Polk were also among the top talking points
The winner of a high-profile bidding war for Warner Bros Discovery may gain a strategic advantage far greater than mere subscriber growth - IP licensing leverage
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Varuni Paranavitane of Finnegan and IP counsel Lisa Ribes compare and contrast two recent AI copyright decisions from Germany and the UK
Exclusive in-house data uncovered by Managing IP reveals French firms underperform on providing value equivalent to billing costs and technology use
The new court has drastically changed the German legal market, and the Munich-based firm, with two recent partner hires, is among those responding
Consultation feedback on mediation and arbitration rules and hires for Marks & Clerk and Heuking were also among the major talking points
Nick Groombridge shares how an accidental turn into patent law informed his approach to building a practice based on flexibility and balancing client and practitioner needs
Gift this article