Double Patenting and Where it Stands as per Delhi High Court

In a recent Judgement by Delhi High Court on 02.11.2020 (CS (Comm) 410/2020 AstraZeneca Ab & Anr v Alkem Laboratories), AstraZeneca (Plaintiff), a reputed British-Swedish multinational Pharmacy & Biotechnology company, was denied an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 under the CPC for grant of Temporary Injunction against Alkem Laboratories (Defendants).

Double PatentingIt was contended by Plaintiff that the Defendants had infringed two of their patents- IN   205147 (Patent 1) and IN 235625 (Patent 2) that relate to the manufacturing of an anti-diabetic drug called Dapagliflozin, which is marketed as Farxiga.

Both the patents were initially registered by Mr. Bristol Myer Squibb, who had then assigned the rights to the same to Plaintiff in 2014. Patent1 was the genus patent that expired in 2020 and Patent 2 was its species, which expired in 2023.

Issue:

• The Plaintiffs claimed that the compound structure of the drug was covered in Patent 1, it was disclosed and marketed only in Patent 2. Plaintiff further argued that there were several more factors in favor of Patent 2, i.e. great commercial success, a number of attempts by various third parties to infringe the said mark, resulting in several injunctions granted by the court. They also argued that the IPO examined the patent for 7 years before actually granting it, and it operated for 15+ years without any opposition, and hence, there had to be some form of presumption over its validity owing to its age.

• The Defendants in return claimed that a single compound cannot be protected by two different patents and the expiry of Patent 1 in 2020 ended the Plaintiff’s monopoly over it. They also claimed that Patent 2’s validity on the ground that it was anticipated by Patent 1. It said that this was an obvious attempt to double patent. They also argued that Patent 2 is also anticipated by all the publications that are already available via Patent 1. They further claimed that the production of Dapagliflozin Patent 2 does not use a novel or original technique, and simply reiterates what even has already been mentioned in Patent 1.

The Court, while making their decision took into account the decision in Roche v Cipla and held that a patent Is only valid until it is challenged. They analyzed Section 64 of The Patent Act 1970 and said that a patent could only be revoked when and if a counterclaim against its validity in a suit for infringement has been filed. They further held that the passing the examination stage of patent registration is in no way the ultimate test of validity and neither did the age of the patent strengthen the “firewall” around it, in fact, the Court held was in contradiction to the plain words given in the statue. The Court further held that at the stage of a preliminary injunction, all the Defendant has to demonstrate is that they have made a credible challenge or that the patent is vulnerable and that validity is not vexatious.

Author:  Suvangana Agarwal  Litigation Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.  In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010