It's important to note that the specifics of patent linkage systems can vary, and changes in legislation may occur over time. Additionally, not all countries have formal patent linkage systems, and alternative mechanisms may be in place to address patent disputes related to generic drug approvals.
1. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013):
Relevant Section: Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act
Overview: Novartis sought a patent for the beta-crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, a cancer drug marketed as Glivec. The patent office rejected the application, citing Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which states that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy is not patentable. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of preventing evergreening—seeking patents for incremental modifications without real therapeutic benefits.
2. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Others (2010):
Relevant Section: Compulsory Licensing under Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act
Overview: Bayer applied for a patent for its anti-cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib). The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks granted a compulsory license to Natco Pharma under Section 84, allowing them to manufacture and sell a generic version of Nexavar at a lower price. This case highlighted the balance between the exclusive rights of patent holders and the public interest, particularly in the context of essential medicines.
3. Ericsson v. Micromax (2013):
Relevant Section: Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) Licensing
Overview: Ericsson filed a patent infringement suit against Micromax, asserting its SEPs related to GSM, EDGE, and WCDMA technologies. The court emphasized the importance of FRAND licensing terms for SEPs, stating that owners of essential patents should license them on fair terms to ensure widespread adoption of standardized technologies.
4. Roche v. Cipla (2008):
Relevant Section: Interpretation of Patent Claims
Overview: Roche sued Cipla for patent infringement related to its anti-cancer drug Erlotinib (Tarceva). The case involved a detailed examination of patent claims and their interpretation to determine whether Cipla's generic version infringed Roche's patent. The court held that Cipla had not infringed, emphasizing the importance of a precise understanding of patent claims in infringement cases.
5. Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Seeds (2018):
Relevant Section: Protection of Biotechnological Inventions
Overview: Monsanto, known for its Bt cotton seeds, filed a case against Nuziveedu Seeds for patent infringement. The case brought attention to the protection of biotechnological inventions in agriculture. It also raised questions about licensing agreements and the role of intellectual property rights in the agricultural sector.
6. Gilead Sciences v. Controller General of Patents (2020):
Relevant Section: Section 3(d)
Overview: Gilead Sciences sought a patent for the antiviral drug sofosbuvir, used to treat Hepatitis C. The patent office rejected the application, citing Section 3(d), arguing that Gilead failed to show enhanced efficacy over existing compounds. This case highlighted the stringent standards set by Section 3(d) for obtaining patents on pharmaceuticals.
7. Astrazeneca v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals (2014):
• Relevant Section: Section 3(d)
• Overview: AstraZeneca filed a patent for its anti-diabetic drug saxagliptin. Emcure Pharmaceuticals challenged the patent's validity, arguing that it lacked inventive step and didn’t satisfy Section 3(d). The court ruled in favor of AstraZeneca, emphasizing the significance of demonstrating enhanced efficacy to overcome Section 3(d).
8. Yahoo! Inc. v. Controller of Patents (2012):
• Relevant Section: Section 3(k)
• Overview: Yahoo! applied for a patent related to a method for displaying information dynamically on a computer screen. The patent office rejected the application, citing Section 3(k), which excludes computer programs per se from patentability. This case contributed to the understanding of patent eligibility for software-related inventions.
9. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd (2017):
• Relevant Section: Section 8
• Overview: Roche filed a case against Cipla for patent infringement related to its respiratory drug, erlotinib. Roche alleged that Cipla's product was infringing its patent. Cipla argued that Roche failed to comply with Section 8 by not providing certain information. The court held that Roche's failure to comply with Section 8 didn’t affect the validity of the patent but could affect damages in a potential infringement case.
Thanks
DS IP services