Important Judgements on Patent Right Infringement

Saptaswara Chakraborty| North Eastern Hill University| 6th July 2020

Introduction

Having patents gives the holder an exclusive right over the invention rendering him to enjoy the monopoly along with its profits. The Indian Patents Act, 1970 is provided with the enforcement of patent right and provides for provisions that safeguards the right of the patent holder. If a patent holder is aggrieved in enforcing the patent right, in such a situation the person can approach a judicial authority vested with the required powers for the redressal of the issue. The Indian judicial history holds important judicial decision that acts as precedents for the rest of the cases to follow. Following are a list of 10 such judicial decision on the patent infringement laws.  

Bajaj Auto Limited v. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009(12) SC 103–

This case involved the controversy of the unauthorized application of the DTSi technology. This ease was also important because it not only involved the financial strakes of the parties, rather it was regarding the application of the Doctrine of Equivalents. The case was filed in the Madras High Court in 2007 by the plaintiff along with the State of Madras against the defendants on infringing of the patents of the plaintiff. The invention was about the technology of advanced internal combustion engine. While it dealt with the issue of patent infringement and damages of the plaintiff, it also took up the issue of the justification of the risks issued by the defendants. This case was also important because the Supreme Court by the judgement directed a speedy trial and the disposal of the intellectual property disputes which would otherwise remain for years. 

Novartis v. Union of India( 2013) 6SCC 1–

This case dealt with the issue of “invention”. Novartis had filed an application to patent one of the drugs called “Gleevec” covering it under invention mentioned u/s of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. However the Supreme Court rejected it by providing the following reasons. Firstly that such a drug was not a discovery. Such a drug also did not qualify the test of efficacy that is the test of enhanced therapeutic efficacy for claims that cover changes to the existing drugs.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central on September 2012- 

There has been a number of Patent disputes between Foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies and the Indian generic drug companies however the instant case sets the standards for patent infringement in India. The plaintiffs had filed for a suit of permanent injunction restraining infringement and also rendering accounts for damage. The defendants which is an Indian pharmaceutical company in their defence had stated that the drug “Erlotinib” which was a major breakthrough for the treatment of cancer was rather a derivative of a known parent. “Quinazoline” and that the composition of it was the same except for one substitution. It also pleaded for the public interest after pointing out the huge difference in the prices. This was upheld by the Delhi High Court and similarly in Supreme Court.

Dr. Snehalata C. Gupta v Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.3516 and 3517 of 2007) Delhi High Court)

This case was important in determining when a patent can be said to be granted under the Patents Act, 1970. A scrutiny of the available provisions was made by the Courts along with the time gap between the grant and the issuance of the certificate. 

Bayer Corporation v. Union of India on April 22, 2019- 

Indian Patents officer had granted compulsory licence to Natco Pharma Ltd. For producing a generic version of Bayer Corporations patented medicine Nexavar used for the treatment of Liver and Kidney cancer. While the medicine produced by Bayer Corporation was sold at a price of Rs. 2.80 lakh for a month’s course, Natco promised to make it available at about 3% that is 8800 of what was charged by Bayer and a 6% royalty to the Bayer Company. The case was challenged before the Intellectual Property Appelate Board by Bayer. It was rejected on the ground that it concerned the public interest and hence such a step was necessary.

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors V. Monsanto Technology LLC and Ors.-

The case was of the issue that whether the summary invalidation of Monsanto’s patent was valid. Both Monsanto and Nuziveedu entered into an agreement which was then extended however in 2015 it was terminated on the ground of licence fee disputes. While giving the judgement, it was observed that the issue raised were complicated, it had also uphold the decision of the single judge and therefore granted injunctive relief to the respondents.

Fried Alans v Union of India  Ors.

The case involved the a patent application relating to a computer programmer for accessing information sources and services on the web. It was rejected as per section 3(k) of the Patents Act by the Controller as because programme are not patentable The court directed the Controller to re-examine the patent application on the ground that it was embedded in digital or electronic devices. It was held that computer programmes cannot be denied by patent application if it satisfies the required standards.

Ericsson v. Xiaomi case- 

In this case, Ericsson had filed a lawsuit against Xiaomi in India on December 2014 in order to protect its patent right under the 8 standards  essential patent. This resulted in an ex-parte injunction having been passed by the Hon’ble High Court on the sale, manufacture, advertisement and the import of Xiaomi’s devices. This order was challenged by Xiaomi before a Divisional Bench of the High Court. The Divisional Bench of the High Court passed a temporary order for the resumption of the sale, manufacture, advertisement and the import of Xiaomi’s devices to only Qualcolm mobiles with a royalty of Rs. 100 to be deposited by Xiaomi.