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

Nick Redfearn, head of enforcement at Rouse and a classic car enthusiast, explains the sudden viral appearance of classic car restomod parts from China and the impact of IP in this new trade
Our 2026 rankings for Western Europe, taken with historical data, reveal that some European IP markets hardly change – while others are more fluid
Selina Hinchliffe, head of commercial services at Shakespeare Martineau, reflects on rejecting Cambridge, leading through empathy, and why authenticity matters more than fitting in
US corporates are using the UPC, but much of that work still flows to European boutiques. Last week’s merger, as well as others, could alter that dynamic
Publicly listed Australian group IPH delivered on its promise to profoundly shake up the Canadian market. Four years on, rivals have had time to adapt
IP practitioners debate whether new guidelines will make it more difficult to challenge a patent
Varuni Paranavitane says she is excited to bring ‘rounded expertise’ to the firm, which will have a solicitor in its ranks for the first time
Lawyers adapting to AI-driven recommendations are being pushed to demonstrate expertise publicly rather than simply relying on a polished website
Mid-market businesses looking to establish an online presence need ‘holistic’ brand protection services at an accessible cost, according to partners
Our latest update also includes the latest case filing statistics, and an update on how a transatlantic merger could be a UPC opportunity for the US half of the partnership
Gift this article