F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.
Whether a generic company's polymorph product infringed a patent on a cancer compound, and whether that patent was invalid.
What the court held
The Division Bench held the patent valid and infringed. It rejected the attacks based on obviousness, insufficient disclosure and the bar on new forms, reasoning that the new form objection was directed at the defendant's own later form rather than at the patented compound. Infringement was decided by comparing the defendant's product with the claims, not with the patentee's marketed product. Because the patent was close to the end of its term the Court declined a permanent injunction and instead directed an inquiry into damages or accounts.
Why it matters to a reader of this provision
This was India's first full appellate decision after trial in a pharmaceutical patent suit, and it is the usual starting point for how Indian courts compare claims against an accused product. It also shows that a finding of infringement does not automatically produce an injunction, and it explains where the new form objection fits when validity is attacked in a suit rather than during examination.
Provisions this judgment interprets
Open a provision for the plain-language explanation, the worked example and the forms and deadlines it touches.
Does this judgment affect your matter?
Whether a decision helps or hurts depends entirely on your facts and your claims. A patent professional can tell you which.