The Roche vs CIPLA litigation gives us an excellent opportunity to examine the contours of section 3(d). Please read our previous posts, please see here. Section 3(d) reads as below: “the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in increased efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such […]

Gauri Kamath of Businessworld writes a fascinating article on the CIPLA infringement strategy. See her report here, which I’ve copied below: Launch First, Fight Later “The Delhi high court is currently hearing a high-profile patents lawsuit that has the potential to change the rules of the game in India. In a first, Mumbai-based drug maker Cipla has launched a copycat or generic version of a drug with the full knowledge that the original has been patented in India. The product

Dr Gopakumar Nair, an expert on patent issues and founder of the reputed Patent Gurukul site has sent us some great details on the dates re: the patent applications in the Tarceva case. The dates are very critical to issues such as novelty, time for filing post grant opposition etc. He writes as below: “Indian Patent Application No. 537/DEL/1996 A filed on 13th March, 1996 has been granted as 196774 and published on 13th July, 2007 in the Official Journal

Readers will recollect our earlier posts on the “pricing” issue in this patent litigation and our plea to disentangle “pricing” from “patentability”. A conflation in this regard will only lead to convoluted patent jurisprudence in this country. Does anyone know what the actual pricing is in the Tarceva case? News reports such as the Hindu and the Mint state the price of Roche’s drug is Rs 4800 per tablet, while CIPLA sells at Rs 1600. I’ve heard however that Abhishek