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

Another IP litigator joins Winston & Strawn in Dallas as firm seeks to keep pace with ‘rapid’ growth of Texas market
Anthony O'Malley will replace Andrew Blattman at IPH, which owns several large IP firms across Australia, Asia and Canada
Barry Greenbaum, partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky, explains how in-house teams can update their approach to brand development, and where AI can add value
Christine Chiramel, who joins a full-service law firm after 17 years of working at specialist firms, says she’s excited to explore how corporate commercial issues are blurring into IP
Practitioners say increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of India’s most popular IP litigation forum to around $2 million would spark unpredictability and make it difficult for SMEs to benefit
The Spain-based firm has appointed an industry veteran to lead the group, which it hopes will strengthen its ability to support clients in ‘disruptive technologies’
Shaina Haria, a final-seat trainee at an international law firm’s UK office, shares how she fell in love with IP and why the area of law has changed the way she views the world
Now in its sixth edition, the IP Case Law Conference was focussed on the notion of ‘growing through change’
Nick Redfearn and Khanh Nguyen of Rouse discuss Vietnam’s latest identification in the 2026 Special 301 Report and how the country is taking genuine steps to meet US expectations
Tatiana Campello reflects on 30 years of practising at the firm, and urges women IP attorneys to think beyond the day-to-day
Gift this article