Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.36 seconds)Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Alkem Laboratories Limited on 2 November, 2020
In AstraZeneca AB (supra), a learned Single Judge of this
Court examined this concept of Genus versus Species Patent, and held
as under:
Novartis Ag vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2013
33. This would also clearly constitute an
abuse of the patenting system and curb
legitimate manufacture and sale of such
products in India, especially if most of the
patents/inventions are not being worked. The
effort to extend the monopoly beyond the
permissible period of 20 years in this manner
is contrary to law as held by the Supreme
Court in Novartis AG v. Union of India, AIR
2013 SC 1311"
Section 8 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
The Patents Act, 1970
Section 107 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland ... vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central, Mumbai on 7 September, 2012
43. The learned counsels for the defendants submit that the
plaintiff's Patent Term Extension application contains a positive
affirmation that US'834 claims REGORAFENIB. Placing reliance on
Novartis (supra) and Hoffman La Roche (supra), they submit that the
statements made in a foreign jurisdiction are relevant to assess the
scope of a purported invention. They submit that in view of Section
8(1) and 8(2) of the Act, these details should have been disclosed by
the plaintiff in the prosecution of its application for the Suit Patent.
Novartis Ag & Anr. vs Natco Pharma Limited & Anr. on 13 December, 2021
43. The learned counsels for the defendants submit that the
plaintiff's Patent Term Extension application contains a positive
affirmation that US'834 claims REGORAFENIB. Placing reliance on
Novartis (supra) and Hoffman La Roche (supra), they submit that the
statements made in a foreign jurisdiction are relevant to assess the
scope of a purported invention. They submit that in view of Section
8(1) and 8(2) of the Act, these details should have been disclosed by
the plaintiff in the prosecution of its application for the Suit Patent.