Differential pricing: Reconciling IP rights

By Abhai Pandey,Lex Orbis
0
736
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

The after-effects of the decision allowing Cipla to continue with the manufacture and sale of the patented drug “Tarceva” of Roche, has led big pharma to resort to differential pricing.

Abhai Pandey, Lawyer, Lex Orbis
Abhai Pandey
Lawyer
Lex Orbis

Roche had filed an infringement suit against Cipla over its patent for Tarceva, and as a counterclaim, Cipla had argued for the invalidity of the patent on the grounds of it being anticipated by the prior art.

The court, upon its finding that the Roche case, though arguable and disclosing prima facie merit had to answer a credible challenge to the patent raised by Cipla, turned its focus to balancing the convenience of the parties.

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

Abhai Pandey is a lawyer with LEX ORBIS IP Practice, a law firm specializing in intellectual property issues.

infringement
LexOrbis
709/710 Tolstoy House
15-17 Tolstoy Marg
New Delhi – 110 001
India
Mumbai | Bengaluru
Contact details
Tel: +91 11 2371 6565
Fax: +91 11 2371 6556
Email: mail@lexorbis.com
Website: www.lexorbis.com

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link