INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. Intellectual Property Rights

2. Cipla vs Roche

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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&tbm=isch&sa=X
&ved=0ahUKEwjYqpLao53LAhWJCo4KHRfND3QQ_AUICSgD#imgrc=qor
kB--si6ErgM%3A
 http://catalog.wlimg.com/1/2085590/other-images/48483.jpg
 http://www.indiainfoline.com/company/cipla-ltd/114