Bar&Bench News Network
Swiss pharma firm, Hoffman-La Roche represented by IP lawyers Anand and Anand, have been dealt a major blow with the Chennai Patent Office deciding against its patent relating to anti-viral drug Valcyte. In the post-grant opposition filed by various Indian pharma companies, patent controller S.P. Balasubramanium ruled against Roche stating that Valcyte lacked inventive step.
Roche had developed an ester of a pre-existing intravenous anti-viral drug, Gancyclvoir, administered mostly to HIV patients, called L Valinate. In an attempt to make the consumption of the drug easier, mainly through oral administration of the drug, Roche developed the ester of gancyclvoir which resulted in the production and sale of ‘Valcyte’. A detailed background of the case can be found on IP blog, Spicy IP.
Cipla promptly manufactured the generic alternative naming it ‘Valcept’ Roche filed a patent and trademark infringement suit in the Bombay High Court, which ruled in favour of Roche with regard to the trademark, and directed Cipla to change the name of its generic drug.
Roche then approached the Supreme Court, but the Bench dismissed the petition stating that it the petition was too early and asked Roche to await the decision of the Chennai patent office on the post-grant opposition filed by NGOs Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS and Tamil Nadu Networking People with HIV/AIDS, both represented by Anand Grover.
This isn’t the first time that these two majors have sparred with each other. Petitions filed by Roche are pending across various courts in the country. Earlier this year, Cipla scored a victory over Roche when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Cipla over selling Erlocip, the generic version of Roche’s lung and pancreatic cancer drug, Tarceva.
With the recent Chennai patent office’s decision, it appears that the Indian patent authorities favour cheaper drugs. This comes as good news to the general public and bad news for multinational drug companies.
Senior Counsel Virag Tulzapurkar, instructed by Crawford Bayley’s Mumbai offices has been consistently representing Roche in the Bombay High Court. M&M Legal Ventures represented Cipla while Senior Counsel Anand Grover with counsel Prakash Mahadik represented Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS in the Bombay High Court.
Senior Counsels Anil Divan and Rohinton Nariman appeared on behalf of Roche in the Supreme Court with counsels K.V. Vishwanathan, Manish Kumar, Jayant Kumar Mehta, Aditya Kant and Rakesh Sharma. Indian Network for people living with HIV/AIDS were represented by Senior Counsel Anand Grover with counsel Rukhsana Choudhury.
Cipla and Bakul Pharma, who are the prime contenders in the post-grant opposition in the Patent Office, were represented by Majmudar & Co. Ramesh Kumar of R.K. Legal also represented Cipla while Ranbaxy were represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan and Matrix Labs were represented by Feroz Ali of Ali Associates.
|
- 1. "a) The Patent Authorities do NOT favour generic medicines.Please read the detailed order and you will note that it is a very well reasoned order taking into account, submissions made by all parties;b) What is the point of reporting who represents parties in other Courts???The current article is about the patent revocation matter at the Chennai Patent Office level - so would love to know who represented the parties at that particular level... ". RSK, HYD
Related Stories
- 2-0 for Cipla; Bayer fails in Patent Linkage battle
- Cipla scores victory in the Supreme Court
- Bayer continues patent linkage battle in Delhi High Court
- 14-year epic battle draws to a close as Bombay High court rules against liaison offices for foreign firms
- Amarchand continues QIP spree with 3i Infotech and Cipla
- Luthra continues headhunting as FoxMandal loses Corporate Practice head
- Google one-up in Adwords battle
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










