MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Manufacturing and Selling of Olaparib by Natco Constitutes Infringement: Delhi HC Grants Injunction Upholding Kudos Pharmaceuticals’ Patent Rights

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment, has upheld the patent rights of Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, restraining Natco Pharma Limited from the manufacture and sale of the cancer drug Olaparib. The court’s decision addresses vital aspects of patent law, reinforcing the protection granted to patented innovations in the pharmaceutical sector.

  1. Patent Infringement Established: The judgment pronounced that Natco’s activities related to Olaparib constituted a clear infringement of Kudos’ suit patent IN’720, emphasizing the patent’s long-standing validity without opposition for 19 years.
  2. Examination of Validity Challenge: The court meticulously examined Natco’s arguments against the patent’s validity, focusing on inventive step and anticipation arguments. The ruling articulated that these challenges lacked the necessary credibility.
  3. Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court awarded an interlocutory injunction favoring Kudos, thereby preventing Natco from engaging in activities involving Olaparib. Concurrently, Natco’s counterclaim seeking an injunction against Kudos was dismissed.
  4. Legal Precedents and Principles: The decision elaborated on critical principles under Sections 64, 3(d), and 8 of the Patents Act. It highlighted the stringent criteria for mounting a credible challenge to the validity of a patent, distinguishing between patent coverage and actual disclosure.

Observations from the Court: Justice C. Hari Shankar noted, “The lack of opposition through the patent’s life span and the failure of the defendant to initiate any proceedings challenging the patent illustrate the strength and legitimacy of the patent holder’s rights.”

This ruling is a significant triumph for Kudos Pharmaceuticals, reinforcing the company’s patent on Olaparib. It sets a crucial precedent regarding the requirements for successfully challenging the validity of a patent.

Date of Decision: March 1, 2024

Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. Vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Similar News