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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Daniel Tarr explains why returning to his former firm could help him establish his personal brand, and predicts what’s on the horizon for AI litigation
A call to reinstate the European Commission's controversial SEP proposal and a trademark row involving Stanley cups were also among the top talking points
Susman Godfrey and Polsinelli secured victory for power systems manufacturer Vicor at the US International Trade Commission
Longi’s actions against JinkoSolar are the latest in a growing number of patent infringement disputes involving solar technology
Former solo practitioner Merlyne Jean-Louis explains why she moved to the newly formed Pierson Ferdinand, which operates as a virtual firm
With the India IP office headquarters moving from Mumbai to Delhi, forum shoppers and firms in the capital could benefit
David Stone, a highly influential figure at legacy firm Allen & Overy, has joined White & Case in what is a major move early in 2025
While business has been tough, foreign law firms with IP practices that have decided to stay put in China reveal why they are optimistic
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 10 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2025
The Intellectual Property Judges' Association wrote to the European Commission just days before the proposals were shelved, it can be revealed
Gift this article