F. HOFFMANN- LA ROCHEE LTD Vs. CIPLA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE shall be referring to the parties as 'Roche' and 'Cipla'.

(2.) WITH respect to a patent bearing No.196774 'Roche' sued 'Cipla' alleging infringement of the patent. Apart from damages, decree for permanent injunction was prayed for.

(3.) PATENT in favour of ´Roche' pertains to a Hydrochloride drug used in treatment of cancer, which we may call 'Polymer A'. It so happened that 'Roche' had applied for another patent pertaining to another Hydrochloride polymer, which we may call 'Polymer B' stating that it was distinctively dis-similar to the earlier polymer (A) for which it had obtained a patent. Novelty and distinctiveness vis-a-vis the second polymer (B) was claimed. The claim for the second patent failed. 'Roche' rested. It did not challenge the decision of the Controller of Patents. The decision rejecting the claim for patent to be granted for Polymer B has become final.