Information on this blog is being shared only for the purpose of creating legal awareness in public at large, especially in the field of Intellectual Property Right. As there may be possibility of error, omission or mistake in legal interpretation on the contents of this blog, it should not be treated as substitute for legal advise. [ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN, EMAIL: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, Mob:09990389539]
Sunday, January 5, 2025
Galatea Ltd. Vs. Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation
Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Right and Scope of product-by-process Patent
Case Title: Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.:FAO(OS)(COMM) 160/2023 & CM APPL. 39197/2023
Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:878:DB
Date of Order: February 7, 2024
Court:High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Introduction
On February 7, 2024, the Delhi High Court, through a 188-page judgment by Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma, overturned a restrictive interpretation of product-by-process claims. The Division Bench ruled that patent protection for such claims extends to the product itself, provided it is novel and inventive, regardless of the manufacturing process.
Background
Vifor International Ltd. held Patent No. IN'536 for Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), a novel water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex with unique molecular properties. The company alleged infringement by pharmaceutical companies, including Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. and MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., and sought an interim injunction.
Refusal of Injunction by Single Judge resulted in filing of this Appeal.
The Single Judge denied the injunction, reasoning that product-by-process patents protect only products made using the specified process. Since the defendants used a different process, the judge ruled there was no infringement.
Brief Facts of the Case
1. Patent Details: Application No.: 947/KOLNP/2005
Filed: May 24, 2005
Granted: June 25, 2008
Expired: October 20, 2023
2. Product Description:FCM is described as a water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex, used to treat iron deficiency. The product is characterized by specific molecular weight parameters and a unique production process involving maltodextrins oxidized using an aqueous hypochlorite solution.
3. Claims:The appellant argued that the patent included a product claim with process descriptions, whereas the respondents contended it was a process-limited claim.
Issues Involved in the Case
Scope of Product-by-Process Claims: Does a product-by-process claim protect the product regardless of how it is manufactured, or is its scope limited to products made through the disclosed process?
Infringement Analysis: How should courts evaluate whether a competing product infringes a product-by-process claim, especially when alternative manufacturing methods are used?
Submissions of the Parties
Appellants (Vifor International Ltd.):
1. Asserted that FCM is a novel product and the process terms in the claims are merely illustrative.
2. Highlighted that the product has been granted patents in 57 jurisdictions without challenge.
3. Emphasized that FCM’s uniqueness is acknowledged globally, including an INN assignment by WHO.
4. Cited international jurisprudence supporting broader interpretation of "product-by-process" claims.
Respondents (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.):
1. Contended that the claims are limited to the process described, making the patent a "product-by-process" claim.
2. Asserted that their product does not use the same process as described in IN'536, hence no infringement.
3. Argued that the product was already known in prior art, making the patent invalid for lack of novelty.
Reasoning and Analysis by the Court
Definition and Purpose:
A product-by-process claim bridges the gap between product and process patents. It is used when a novel product cannot be adequately described by its structure alone, necessitating reference to its manufacturing process.
Key Principles:
1. Novelty of the Product:
A product-by-process claim is valid only if the product itself is novel and inventive, irrespective of the process described.Merely describing a new process does not make the product novel.
2. Patentability and Infringement:
The same criteria of novelty and inventiveness apply during patent grant and infringement analysis. Claims should not be treated differently for validity and infringement purposes.
3. Global Standards:
Guidelines from patent offices (e.g., IPO, EPO, USPTO) and international jurisprudence emphasize that novelty must be assessed by disregarding process terms and focusing on the product's unique attributes.
4. Product is the main focuss while process is supplimentary in narure:
Product-by-process claims fundamentally protect a novel product, with process terms serving as an explanatory tool. The focus remains on the product’s uniqueness, ensuring consistent evaluation across patentability and infringement.
Decision
The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by Vifor International Ltd. and overturned the restrictive interpretation of product-by-process claims adopted by the Single Judge and held that product-by-process claims protect the product itself, provided it is novel and inventive, irrespective of the specific manufacturing process described in the patent.
Conclusion:
This broader interpretation ensures that the essence of the invention—the novel and inventive product—is safeguarded, rather than limiting protection to the process by which it is made. This case underscores the complexities of interpreting product-by-process claims under Indian patent law.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Phone: 9990389539
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Novartis AG Vs. Natco Pharma [Pre Grant Opponents and Patent Amendment[
Saturday, January 4, 2025
Amrish Aggarwal Trading as Mahalaxmi ProductVersus Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and another
Wednesday, October 9, 2024
.V. Lakshminarayanasamy Vs Siva Bhaskaren
News Tamil 24 X 7 Vs Ananda Vikatan Publishers P Ltd
Itc Limited Vs Arpita Agro Products Pvt Ltd
Blog Archive
- January 2025 (30)
- October 2024 (8)
- September 2024 (34)
- August 2024 (68)
- July 2024 (39)
- June 2024 (57)
- May 2024 (49)
- April 2024 (6)
- March 2024 (44)
- February 2024 (39)
- January 2024 (21)
- December 2023 (29)
- November 2023 (23)
- October 2023 (29)
- September 2023 (33)
- August 2023 (29)
- July 2023 (29)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- April 2023 (5)
- March 2023 (6)
- February 2023 (1)
- November 2022 (17)
- October 2022 (11)
- September 2022 (30)
- August 2022 (47)
- July 2022 (37)
- June 2022 (26)
- October 2020 (1)
- September 2020 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (1)
- February 2020 (2)
- December 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (2)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (2)
- February 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (2)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (2)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (8)
- July 2018 (2)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (41)
- April 2018 (7)
- March 2018 (3)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (2)
- December 2017 (6)
- November 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (5)
- August 2017 (6)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (10)
- April 2017 (16)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (24)
- March 2015 (2)
- January 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (4)
- October 2013 (2)
- September 2013 (7)
- August 2013 (27)
- May 2013 (7)
- September 2012 (31)
- December 2009 (3)
- September 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (1)
Featured Post
WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING
WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK REGISTRA...
-
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 317/2018, CAV 617/2018 & CM AP...
-
==================== Judgement Date:29.08.2022 Case No. CM (M) IPD 2 of 2022 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Prathiba M Singh, H.J. Institu...
My Blog List
-
मछलियों में घड़ियाल - गीता-विà¤ूति योग श्रीà¤à¤—वानुवाच “प्रह्लादश्चास्मि दैत्यानां कालः कलयतामहम्। मृगाणां च मृगेन्द्रोऽहं वैनतेयश्च पक्षिणाम्।।” मैं दैत्यों में प्रह्लाद और ग...2 weeks ago
-
Deepfake Technology: Unveiling The Challenges And Protective Measures - Introduction: The rapid evolution of technology has propelled humanity into an era of unprecedented progress and connectivity. However, as with any doubl...1 year ago
-
-
My other Blogging Links
- Ajay Amitabh Suman's Poem and Stories
- Facebook-My Judgments
- Katha Kavita
- Lawyers Club India Articles
- My Indian Kanoon Judgments
- Linkedin Articles
- Speaking Tree
- You Tube-Legal Discussion
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी -Facebook
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी -वर्ड प्रेस
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-दैनिक जागरण
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-नवà¤ारत टाइम्स
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-ब्लॉग स्पॉट
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-स्पीकिंग ट्री