Famous Judgements in Patents

Patent law-
Patent law is the area of law that deals with an inventor’s exclusive right to use their own
invention. The area of patent law aims to encourage new products and inventions by granting
creators the legal right to use and profit from the things that they create.
Famous/ landmark Judgments in Patent law –

1) Bajaj Auto Limited vs. TVS Motor Company Limited1
In this case, there was a patent dispute which was substituted for two years between two
countries involved in a dispute for using twin plug engine technology.
Looking at the pendency of appeal related to Intellectual Property Rights cases in Indian
courts, J. Markandey Katju speaking for himself and JAshok Kumar Ganguly directed all
the courts in India for expeditious disposal of cases invo;ving trademarks, patent and
copyrights. The Supreme Court also directed the judgment should be given in four
months from the date when the suit was filed. The Supreme Court also directed the all
courts and tribunals in the country to punctually and faithfully carry out the aforesaid
orders.
2) Bayer Corporation and ors. V. Union of India and ors.2
In this case, Bayer Corporation attempted to link the case of patent infringement to
granting marketing approval of drug made by Cipla. This concept of Drug- Patent
Linkage is present in USA. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced there is no
Drug Patent Linkage mechanism in India and only the Controller of Patents has the
authority to determine patent standards. It was also held that mere market approval of a
drug does not lead to patent infringement and the jurisdiction of which does not lie with
Drug authorities.
3) Novartis v. Union of India3

Novartis filed an application in this case for patenting an anti- leukemia drug i.e. Glivic.
But the same was rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. He filed a
case before the appellate board and when he could not get the relief, he appealed to
Supreme Court directed through SLP.
The Supreme Court held that Novartis failed to meet the requirement of Novelty. And
also thereby failing to qualify for the test of invention as provided in Section 2(1)(j) and
Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patent Act, 1970 as a result of various publications and disclosure
1
2008 (36) PTC 417 (Mad.)
2
162 (2009)DLT 371
3
Civil Apppeal No. 2706-2716 of 2013
already made about the beta crystalline form of the compound used in the drug, Imatinib
Mesylate. Further the court decided to interpret efficacy as laid down in Section 3(d) of
the Acton lines of therapeutic efficacy and not merely physical efficacy. It held that
though physical efficacy of imatinib mesylate in beta crystalline form is enhanced in
comparison to other forms. But since there was no substantive and conclusive material
and evidence to prove that beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate will produce an
enhanced therapeutic efficacy, Novartis failed to meet the requirement under Section 3
(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court went with therapeutic efficacy interpretation over
physical efficacy owing to the fact that the compound was of medical value.
4) Snehlata C. Gupte vs. Union of India and ors.4

The question when the patent was considered to be granted under the Patent Act was
decided in this case. The Honorable Delhi High Court held that the date on which the
Controller passes an order to that effect on the file, noted that the language, “A patent
shall be granted as expeditious as possible” (under section 43) point out that a patent has
to be granted once it is found that the application has not been refused in a pre-granted
opposition or otherwise is not found in contravention of provision of the Act.
5) Tata Chemicals Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited5

In this case Intellectual Property Appellate Board made clear that “once the Controller
had called upon the applicant to furnish foreign particulars under Section 8(2), it becomes
the duty of the applicant to furnish those details that are required under Section 8(2)”.
6) Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.6

In April 2011, Apple Inc. (Apple) sued Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. (Samsung) and
argued that certain design elements of Samsung’s smartphones infringed on specific
patents for design elements in the iPhone that Apple holds.
Issue-
If an infringed design patent only applies to a component of a product, should damages
for the infringement be limited to the portion of the infringer’s profits attributable to that
component?
Judgment and Conclusion-
The jury held that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents and awarded over $1 billion
in damages. The district court ordered a partial retrial on the issue of damages, and jury
awarded nearly 300 million US dollar in damages On appeal, Samsung argued that the
district court erred in allowing the jury to award damages based on Samsung’s entire
profits, rather than the fraction of profits directly attributable to the infringed patents
themselves. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district
4
W.P.(C) No. 3516 and 3517 of 2007, Delhi High Court
5
Order no. 166 of 2012
6
580 US 2016
court’s award of damages because Samsung did not argue that there was a lack of
substantial evidence to support the award.
For the purpose of calculating damages in a patent infringement action, the infringing
“article of manufacture” may be defined as either an end product sold to a consumer or as
a component of that product.
7) Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation7

Facts –
Indian Patent Office granted its first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma LTD. For
producing generic version of Bayer Corporations’s patented medicine Nexavar
(Sorafenib Tosylate),which is used in the treatment of Liver and Kidney cancer. While
the multinational Bayer Corp. was selling the drug at rupees 2.80 lakh for a month’s
course, and at the same time Natco promised to provide the same at a price of about 3%
(INR8800) of what was charged by Bayer.
Judgment-
Natco was directed to pay 6% of the net sales of the drug to the Bayer, and among other
important terms and condition it was directed to manufacture the patented drug only at
their own manufacturing facility, selling the drug only within the Indian Territory and
supplying the patented drug to at least 6000 needy and deserving patients per year free of
cost.
As Bayer Corp. was not satisfied with the decision, Bayer immediately moved to IPAB
for stay on the order alleging that the grant of compulsory license as illegal. The Board
rejected Bayer’s appeal, stating that it will definitely jeopardize the interest of the public.
Bayer then filed an appeal challenging the compulsory license granted to Natco by the
Controller- General. The Board stated that the invention must be available to the public at
a reasonable affordable price and if not, compulsory license can be issued if one of the
conditions mentioned in section (a),(b) and (c) of S. 84(1) is satisfied, so the Controller
will be within his rights to issue compulsory license. Board on the percentage of royalty
that was to be paid by respondent to the appellant increased to 1% to the previously
ordered and rest of the terms remains the same.
 Devvrat Garhwal
7
CS(COMM) No.1592/2016

Famous Judgements in Patents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Famous Judgements in Patents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Famous Judgements in Patents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patent law-

Famous/ landmark Judgments in Patent law –

2) Bayer Corporation and ors. V. Union of India and ors.2

3) Novartis v. Union of India3

4) Snehlata C. Gupte vs. Union of India and ors.4

5) Tata Chemicals Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited5

6) Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.6

7) Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation7

You might also like