IPR
Topic 109 Landmark Patent Cases
Topic 109 — Landmark Patent Cases
Indian patent law has developed through landmark cases that collectively define the operational framework. The foundational case is NOVARTIS AG v. UNION OF INDIA (SC 2013) — Section 3(d) anti-evergreening provision upheld; therapeutic efficacy as patentability test; Glivec rejected. BAYER v. NATCO (Patent Office 2012) granted India's only compulsory licence under Section 84 for Sorafenib (Nexavar). ROCHE v. CIPLA (Del HC 2009) established that manufacturing is not a prerequisite for patent infringement. The TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. LAVA (Del HC 2024:DHC:2698) is the watershed SEP/FRAND case with substantial damages and the seven-step novelty analysis. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE v. CIT (SC 2021) defined software royalty taxation under DTAAs. FERID ALLANI v. UoI (2019:DHC:6944) established the technical effect test for software/CRI patentability. PRIYA RANDOLPH v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER (2023) clarified blockchain patentability. AVENTIS v. ALGREAT (Del HC 3 February 2025) — ₹5L damages + 4 weeks imprisonment for contempt of injunction. EMPAGLIFLOZIN (HP HC 30 May 2024) — credible challenge framework for patent revocation. VIFOR INTERNATIONAL v. MSN — first Indian product-by-process patent claims judgment. Recent CRI Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025) modernise the AI/software patent framework. ANI Media v. OpenAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024) — AI training judgment reserved 2025. This topic walks through the foundational, recent, and emerging patent jurisprudence — patentability, infringement, compulsory licensing, SEP/FRAND, and AI/software/biotechnology patents.
1. Foundational Patent Cases
📖 Novartis AG v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 1311; (2013) 6 SCC 1; Civil Appeal Nos. 2706-2716/2013 Facts — Novartis applied for patent on beta-crystalline form of Imatinib mesylate (Glivec) — leukemia treatment. India's Patents Act amended 2005 introduced Section 3(d) anti-evergreening provision. Section 3(d) — Mere discovery of new form of known substance not patentable unless it differs significantly in efficacy. Issues — (i) Whether Section 3(d) violates Article 14? (ii) Whether Section 3(d) complies with TRIPS? (iii) Whether Glivec's beta-crystalline form satisfies "enhanced efficacy"? Holdings — Supreme Court (1 April 2013): (i) Section 3(d) constitutional; not arbitrary or vague. (ii) Section 3(d) within TRIPS flexibilities (Article 27). (iii) "Enhanced efficacy" must be THERAPEUTIC efficacy, not bioavailability. (iv) Glivec beta-crystalline form fails enhanced efficacy test. (v) Patent rejected. Significance — LANDMARK constitutional + TRIPS jurisprudence: · Section 3(d) anti-evergreening upheld. · Therapeutic efficacy as patentability test. · Public health considerations within TRIPS flexibilities. · Generic competition preserved for life-saving medicines. · Foundational for Indian pharmaceutical IP framework. |
📖 Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation, 9 March 2012 (Patent Office, Mumbai); IPAB 4 March 2013 Facts — Bayer Corporation held Indian patent for Sorafenib (brand name Nexavar) — kidney/liver cancer drug. Bayer's Indian price ~₹2.8 lakh per month treatment. Natco Pharma applied for compulsory licence to market generic at ~₹8,800 per month treatment. Section 84 Application — Three grounds satisfied: (a) Reasonable requirements of public not satisfied — only 2% of eligible patients reached. (b) Not available at reasonably affordable price. (c) Not worked in India — Bayer imported, did not manufacture. Patent Office (March 2012) — Compulsory licence granted; royalty 6% on net sales; field of use restrictions. IPAB Appeal (March 2013) — Compulsory licence affirmed. Bombay HC + Supreme Court — Final affirmation. Significance — INDIA'S FIRST AND ONLY COMPULSORY LICENCE under Section 84: · TRIPS flexibilities operational. · Affordability ground primary. · Local working consideration. · Article 21 + Article 47 integration. · Foundational case for future compulsory licensing. · Subsequent applications (Lee Pharma 2015 for Saxagliptin) failed. |
📖 F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2009 (40) PTC 75 (Del); FAO 188/2008 Facts — Roche held Indian patent for Erlotinib (Tarceva) — anti-cancer drug. Cipla filed application for generic launch. Issues — Whether patent infringement requires actual manufacturing OR pre-launch threats sufficient. Holding — Delhi HC (April 2009): Manufacturing NOT a prerequisite for patent infringement claim. Pre-launch threats sufficient. Interim injunction principles for patent cases. Subsequent — Roche v. Cipla post-trial (2012); appeals; Supreme Court litigation. Significance — Foundational pharmaceutical patent enforcement case. Established that patent holder need not wait for actual harm — pre-launch threats sufficient for injunction. Particularly important for time-sensitive patent enforcement. |
2. SEP/FRAND Patent Cases
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International, 2024:DHC:2698 Facts — Ericsson held Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for mobile telecommunications standards. Lava manufactured handsets using these standards. Ericsson sought royalty. Issues — FRAND obligations; royalty quantum; SEP infringement; novelty analysis. Holding — Delhi HC (2024:DHC:2698): (i) FRAND obligations binding. (ii) Substantial damages awarded. (iii) Seven-step novelty analysis framework for SEP litigation. (iv) Patent holder entitled to reasonable royalty. (v) Implementer must respect SEP framework. Significance — WATERSHED Indian SEP/FRAND litigation: · Substantial damages quantification. · Seven-step novelty framework. · FRAND obligation enforcement. · Mobile telecom industry implications. · Foundation for future SEP cases. |
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex / Micromax / iBall / Karbonn / Xiaomi (Series), 2014-2015 (Del HC) Facts — Ericsson asserted SEPs for telecom standards against multiple Indian handset manufacturers in 2014-2015. Issues — FRAND obligations; antitrust concerns; royalty quantum; market entry. Holdings — Multiple Delhi HC cases: · Interim royalty determination. · Pre-trial royalty deposits. · Confidentiality club for sensitive evidence. · FRAND framework development. Subsequent — CCI parallel investigation; Telefonaktiebolaget v. CCI (Del HC 2016) jurisdictional framework. Significance — Foundational Indian SEP/FRAND case series. Established pre-trial royalty framework. Foundation for Ericsson v. Lava 2024 watershed. |
3. Software / CRI / Emerging Technology Patent Cases
📖 Ferid Allani v. Union of India, 2019:DHC:6944 Facts — Allani sought patent on "Method of conducting business based on Internet, including a method of accessing electronic resources." Patent Office rejected under Section 3(k) (computer programs per se). Holding — Delhi HC: Established TECHNICAL EFFECT TEST: · Pure software (computer programs per se) NOT patentable under Section 3(k). · Software with TECHNICAL EFFECT — beyond mere computer program — IS patentable. · Hardware-software combinations may be patentable. · Network architecture innovations may be patentable. Significance — Foundational test for software patent eligibility in India. Affects: · AI/ML patents. · IoT patents. · Software-on-chip patents. · Network protocol patents. · Subsequent CRI Guidelines align with this test. |
📖 Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Asst. Controller of Patents, 2023:DHC:3342 Facts — Microsoft sought patent for software methodology. Patent Office rejected under Section 3(k). Holding — Delhi HC: Reaffirmed Ferid Allani technical effect test; remanded for fresh consideration. Significance — Continues elaboration of Section 3(k) interpretation. Relevant to AI/cloud patent applications. |
📖 OpenTV Inc. v. Controller of Patents, 2023:DHC:3305 Facts — OpenTV sought patent for interactive TV business method. Holding — Delhi HC: ABSOLUTE BAR on business method patents under Section 3(k). Significance — Distinguishes pure business methods (absolutely excluded) from technical inventions (potentially patentable). Critical for fintech, e-commerce patents. |
📖 Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller, 2023 (Madras HC) Facts — Patent application related to blockchain-based system. Patent Office rejected under Section 3(k). Holding — Madras HC: Blockchain patents possible if technical effect demonstrated; remanded for fresh consideration. Significance — Foundational for blockchain patent jurisprudence in India. |
4. AI Patent Cases
📖 Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office, 2025 (Del HC) Background — Thaler's "DABUS" AI system globally rejected as inventor. Indian challenge. Holding — Delhi HC (2025): 8-week directive on AI authorship reconsideration. Significance — Following US/UK rejection (Thaler v. Comptroller-General UK SC 2023; Thaler v. Vidal US 2022). Indian framework requires HUMAN INVENTOR (Section 6 Patents Act). |
✅ CRI Guidelines 2025 — Modern AI/Software Framework The Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines 2025 — notified 29 July 2025 — modernise the framework for software/AI patent applications. Key features: · Three-step test integration: 1. Identify the invention. 2. Identify the technical contribution. 3. Assess Section 3(k) exclusion. · Specifically addresses: - AI-related inventions. - Machine learning algorithms. - IoT applications. - Cloud computing. - Blockchain. · Aligns with Ferid Allani technical effect test. · Distinguishes pure software (excluded) from technically-effective software (patentable). · Supports Indian patent ecosystem development. May 2025 expert panel + DPIIT 2024 position contributed to guidelines. |
5. Patent Enforcement Cases
📖 Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Algreat (Industries) (P) Ltd, 3 February 2025 (Delhi HC) Facts — Patent holder Aventis sued Algreat for patent infringement; ex parte ad interim injunction granted; Algreat alleged to have continued infringement. Holding — Delhi HC (3 February 2025): ₹5 lakh damages PLUS 4 weeks imprisonment for contempt of injunction. Significance — Recent (2025) demonstration of: · Serious enforcement of IP injunctions. · Imprisonment for contempt sends strong deterrent message. · Damages quantification framework. · Active Delhi HC IPD operational vigour. |
📖 Empagliflozin Patent Case, HP HC 30 May 2024 Background — Empagliflozin diabetes drug patent dispute. Generic challenger sought revocation/non-infringement. Holding — Himachal Pradesh HC (30 May 2024): "Credible challenge" framework for patent revocation; threshold for genuine vs. tactical challenges. Significance — Demonstrates: · HP HC IP Division operational. · Pharmaceutical patent enforcement framework. · Credible challenge as defense to overly aggressive enforcement. |
📖 Vifor (International) AG v. MSN Laboratories, CS(COMM) 159/2024 (Del HC 2024) Facts — Vifor sought patent enforcement for intravenous iron compound; product-by-process patent claims. Holding — Delhi HC: India's FIRST product-by-process patent claims judgment; refined claim interpretation. Significance — Foundational for product-by-process claims: · Patentability of products defined by manufacturing process. · Important for chemical/pharmaceutical industries. · Modern patent claim interpretation. |
6. Patent Software / Tax Intersection
📖 Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence v. CIT, AIR 2021 SC 1394; (2022) 3 SCC 321 Background — Indian companies imported standard software from non-residents; sought DTAA exemption from royalty taxation. Issue — Whether software payments constitute "royalty" under DTAAs. Holding — Supreme Court (2 March 2021): (i) Standard software payments NOT royalty under DTAAs. (ii) Software is "copyrighted article", not "use of copyright". (iii) DTAAs prevail over domestic law where favourable. Significance — LANDMARK royalty taxation decision. Major impact on IT industry. Affected Indian tax revenue significantly. |
7. Patent + Competition Intersection
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI, W.P(C) No. 464 of 2014 (Del HC 30 March 2016) Facts — Ericsson challenged CCI jurisdiction over patent licensing disputes. Holding — Delhi HC: CCI has jurisdiction over IP-related abuse of dominance; "If irreconcilable differences between Patents Act and Competition Act, the Patents Act being special Act shall prevail." Significance — Foundational decision. Subject to pending Supreme Court SLP March 2024. |
📖 Monsanto Holdings v. CCI, May 2020 (Del HC) Facts — CCI investigated Monsanto for abuse of dominance in Bt cotton trait fees. Holding — Delhi HC: CCI jurisdiction over IP-related abuse of dominance affirmed. Significance — Reinforced Section 4 application to IP. Pending Supreme Court SLP. |
8. AI Training and Patents/Copyright Intersection
📖 Ani Media (P) Ltd. v. Open AI Inc. & Anr., CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Del HC) Background — ANI sued OpenAI for using copyrighted news content to train ChatGPT. Status — Judgment reserved 2025. Issues — Multiple intersections: · Copyright: AI training as infringement. · Privacy: Training data contains personal data. · Free speech: Section 52 fair dealing. · Cross-border jurisdiction. Significance — Pending decision. Will reshape AI copyright + patent framework. |
9. Patent Case Categories Summary
Category | Foundational Cases |
|---|---|
Patentability — Section 3(d) | Novartis 2013; Glivec rejected. |
Patentability — Section 3(k) | Ferid Allani 2019; Microsoft 2023; OpenTV 2023; Priya Randolph 2023. |
Compulsory Licensing | Bayer v. Natco 2012 (only successful); Lee Pharma 2015 (rejected). |
Pre-launch infringement | Roche v. Cipla 2009. |
SEP/FRAND | Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava 2024 (watershed); Ericsson v. Intex/Micromax/iBall/Karbonn/Xiaomi 2014-15. |
Patent + Competition | Telefonaktiebolaget v. CCI 2016; Monsanto v. CCI 2020; SC SLP 2024. |
AI Patents | Stephen Thaler 2025; CRI Guidelines 2025. |
Patent Enforcement | Aventis v. Algreat 2025; Empagliflozin 2024. |
Software Royalty Tax | Engineering Analysis 2021. |
Product-by-Process Claims | Vifor v. MSN 2024. |
AI Training Copyright | ANI v. OpenAI 2024 (pending). |
10. Memory Aid — Quick Recall
✅ Quick Recall — Patent Cases Tags Novartis 2013 — Section 3(d) upheld; Glivec rejected; therapeutic efficacy test. Bayer-Natco 2012 — INDIA'S ONLY COMPULSORY LICENCE; Sorafenib (Nexavar). Roche v. Cipla 2009 — manufacturing not prerequisite; pre-launch threats sufficient. Telefonaktiebolaget v. Lava 2024:DHC:2698 — WATERSHED SEP; substantial damages. Ferid Allani 2019:DHC:6944 — TECHNICAL EFFECT TEST for Section 3(k). Aventis v. Algreat 3 Feb 2025 — ₹5L + 4 weeks imprisonment for contempt. CRI Guidelines 2025 — three-step test for AI/software patentability. Vifor v. MSN 2024 — first product-by-process claims judgment. Stephen Thaler 2025 — AI inventorship; following US/UK rejection. Telefonaktiebolaget v. CCI 2016 — CCI jurisdiction over IP-related abuse. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 109
|