BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Patents Act s.64(1)(e)

Section 64(1)(e), Patents Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court applying Patents Act s.64(1)(e), from 2025, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
1court
2025years

Fmc Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited, CS(COMM) 607/2024

Delhi High Court · Injunction refused

Interim injunction refused in a quia timet action under sections 48 and 108. The plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not favour them. The Court was persuaded that damages, if proved at trial, would be compensable: the plaintiffs appeared to have licensed their rights to two entities whose packaging indicated as much, though the agreements were not placed on record, and they were importing the drug into India, so they were monetising the invention.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited, CM APPL. 17608/2025, CM APPL. 17609/2025, CM APPL. 17610/2025, CM APPL. 17611/2025, CM APPL. 17612/2025, CM APPL. 17613/2025 & CM APPL. 17614/2025

Delhi High Court · Dismissed

Division Bench declined to interfere with the refusal of an interim injunction over Risdiplam. A defendant resisting injunction need only raise a credible challenge to validity under section 107 read with section 64, and is not required to make out a cast iron case; where the Single Judge finds such a challenge established, an appellate court should step back unless the challenge is not credible or incorrect principles were applied, following Wander. The Bench held the Single Judge had correctly found the species patent prima facie obvious over the genus patent on four grounds: four lead inventors were common to both; the genus patent provided for various fused ring heterocycles with nitrogen placed at different positions in the same ring; the imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazinyl substitution was specifically disclosed; and N and CH fall in the same vertical column under Grimm's Hydride Displacement Law.

Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., CS(COMM) 245/2017 & CC(COMM) 54/2017

Delhi High Court · Suit decreed

A rare outcome in this corpus: a patent held valid and infringed after full trial, with the suit decreed. The judgment is equally notable for costs, the Court holding that parties carrying commercial litigation must weigh the consequences of an unfavourable result and that mindless appeals should not be the rule, and awarding full commercial costs under the Commercial Courts Act in a suit instituted in 2013 that had run over a decade with the patent expiring during its pendency.

Other provisions of the Patents Act

All 218 judgments on the Patents Act, 1970 Search the IP Case Digest