Intellectual Property Rights

Cipla vs Roche

About of CIPLA & ROCHE CIPLA: Cipla limited is an Indian multinational

pharmaceutical and biotechnology company, headquartered in Mumbai, India, Belgium and Florida in the United states.

It was founded by Dr. Khwaja Abdul Hamied as 'The Chemical, Industrial & Pharmaceutical Laboratories' in 1935 in Mumbai.

ROCHE: Roche is a leader in research-focused healthcare with combined strengths in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.

Roche is the world’s largest biotech company, with truly differentiated medicines in oncology, immunology, infectious diseases, ophthalmology and neuroscience. 

Roche is also the world leader in in vitro diagnostics and tissue-based cancer diagnostics, and a frontrunner in diabetes management.

Background Delhi High court has been the battleground for a

pharmaceutical war between Roche and Cipla, over Roche’s patent for anticancer drug Erlotinib sold by Roche as TARCEVA.

On 24 April 2009, the division bench of Delhi high court dismissed Roche's appeal against the refusal of a single judge to grant an injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting its generic version of Erlotinib hydrochloride.

This case is regarded as a very important case in a series of high profile patent battle between multinational pharmaceutical companies and Indian generic drug companies.

Facts of the Case In February 2007, Roche with Pfizer (as a joint

applicant), claimed that it had been granted a patent for Erlotinib.

The patented product, which Roche introduced to the Indian market was marketed under the brand name TARCEVA.

In December 2007 and January 2008, Indian news paper reported Cipla’s plan to launch a generic version of erlotinib.

Soon after that, Roche commenced patent infringement proceedings.

Cipla’s Defence and counter claim

Roche’s patent was invalid because erlotinib is a derivative of quinazolin which is used in cancer treatment. According to Indian patent act a derivative of known compound is not valid.

The huge difference in price between Roche’s drug should be taken into account whether to grant or not intrim injuction.

Conclusion In September 2012 Cipla limited won

landmark patent case against Swiss drug maker F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

It had been scientifically proven that Cipla’s generic version was a polymorph B variant of Roche's patented drug and it didn’t infringe any patent in India.

References http://www.rocheindia.com/home/about-roche.html http://www.rocheindia.com/home/about-roche/OurPurpose

.html http://profit.ndtv.com/stock/cipla-ltd_cipla/reports https://www.google.co.in/search?q=cipla&source=lnms&t

bm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYqpLao53LAhWJCo4KHRfND3QQ_AUICSgD#imgrc=qorkB--si6ErgM%3A

http://catalog.wlimg.com/1/2085590/other-images/48483.jpg

http://www.indiainfoline.com/company/cipla-ltd/114