Vifor (International) Ltd. & Anr. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Whether a claim that defines a product by the process used to make it protects the product itself or only product made by that process.
What the court held
The Division Bench held that where a product is genuinely new and inventive but cannot be described adequately by its structure alone, describing it through its method of preparation does not shrink the monopoly down to that method. The claim protects the product, so a rival who makes the same product by a different route may still infringe. The Court disagreed with the view that one test applies when a patent is granted and a different one when infringement is assessed, and stressed that the novelty must lie in the product.
Why it matters to a reader of this provision
Claims of this kind are common in chemistry and biotechnology drafting, and Indian practice on them was unsettled before this appeal. The judgment tells drafters and readers of the specification provisions what such a claim is understood to cover, and tells anyone assessing infringement that a different manufacturing route may not be a defence. It is now the main Indian authority on the subject.
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.