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

AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Gift this article