Indian generics makers claim victory in anaemia drug patent feud

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Scott Palmer, who took 16 lawyers with him when we moved from Perkins Coie to Loeb & Loeb last year, reveals how his Beijing-based team has hit the ground running
Coke Morgan Stewart previously spent 10 years in various USPTO roles before joining O’Melveny in 2023
Law firm Stephens Scown secured victory for its client in a dispute over two cider products
The Court of Appeal said the UPC can award damages based on a national court’s infringement ruling, giving the last laugh to the lawyer who filed the case
AI
Robert Guthrie at Osborne Clarke runs through the government’s AI and copyright consultation and considers the expected challenges
A lawyer firing Meta as a client has reinforced why the industry should not shy away from losing business from those with questionable ethical standards, even if it comes at a cost
A blow for Getty ahead of its AI showdown with Stability AI and a licensing deal between Nokia and Samsung were among the big talking points this week
The IP Federation has written to the UPC Court of Appeal’s presiding judge ahead of a crucial decision on whether in-house lawyers and attorneys can represent their employers in litigation
A Boies Schiller Flexner partner explains how he helped toy company Tangle prevail in a copyright case concerning a kinetic sculpture
Awards
Submit your nominations for this year's WIBL Americas Awards by February 28
Gift this article