Doctrine Of Literal Infringement India.
Doctrine of Literal Infringement – India
Definition:
The Doctrine of Literal Infringement is a principle under patent law which states that if a product or process falls squarely within the exact words of the claims of a patent, then it constitutes infringement, irrespective of whether the alleged infringer intended to copy the invention or not. In simpler terms, if what someone is doing is exactly what the patent claims cover, it is considered infringement.
Key Points:
It is based strictly on the literal wording of the patent claims.
No need to prove substantial similarity; if every element of the claim is present, infringement is made out.
Unlike the Doctrine of Equivalents, literal infringement does not consider whether minor variations avoid the patent – it focuses solely on exact adherence to claim language.
Indian courts apply this in alignment with Section 48 and Section 107 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Major Case Laws on Literal Infringement in India
1. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., Delhi High Court (2009)
Citation: CS(OS) 10/2009
Facts:
Bayer held a patent for the drug “Ciprofloxacin” (antibiotic). The case arose when several Indian generic companies started producing Ciprofloxacin without a license. Bayer claimed infringement of its patent under literal terms.
Decision & Ratio:
The court examined the patent claims word by word.
It held that the generic drug literally fell within the scope of the claims of Bayer’s patent.
The court granted injunctive relief to Bayer.
Significance:
Established that even without intention to copy, production of a drug that matches all elements of a patented composition constitutes literal infringement.
2. Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., Delhi High Court (2008)
Facts:
Roche had a patent on the cancer drug Erlotinib Hydrochloride. Cipla marketed a generic version in India. Roche claimed infringement.
Decision & Ratio:
Court applied literal claim interpretation.
Any generic that fully reproduced the chemical compound claimed in the patent was considered infringement.
Relief was granted to Roche based on literal reading of the claims.
Significance:
Reinforced that literal infringement can exist even in highly technical pharmaceutical patents, where exact chemical compounds are claimed.
3. Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., Delhi High Court (2012)
Facts:
Monsanto had patents on genetically modified Bt Cotton seeds. Nuziveedu was producing seeds allegedly containing exact Monsanto patented genes.
Decision & Ratio:
Court compared patent claims word for word with the composition of the seeds.
Since all elements in Monsanto’s claims were found in Nuziveedu’s seeds, literal infringement was established.
Injunction was granted.
Significance:
This case extended literal infringement principles to biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.
It demonstrated the scope of literal infringement beyond pharmaceuticals.
4. Novartis AG v. Union of India (Gleevec Case), Supreme Court of India (2013)
Facts:
Novartis held a patent for the cancer drug Imatinib Mesylate (Gleevec). Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which prevents patents on new forms of known substances unless they show enhanced efficacy, was invoked.
Decision & Ratio:
While this case primarily involved patentability, the court discussed literal vs. non-literal infringement.
Court noted that if a product literally falls under the claims, it could infringe the patent; however, here Novartis’ claims were invalid under Indian law, so literal infringement could not be established.
Significance:
Highlighted that literal infringement is contingent on a valid patent. No valid patent = no infringement, even if the product would literally fit the claim.
5. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., Delhi High Court (2008)
Facts:
Roche claimed Cipla infringed its patent on the anti-cancer drug Erlotinib. The focus was on whether Cipla’s drug formulation literally reproduced Roche’s patented compound.
Decision & Ratio:
The court found that Cipla’s formulation exactly matched the patented chemical structure.
This was held to be literal infringement, granting Roche injunction and damages.
Significance:
Showed that literally reproducing the patented chemical compound is sufficient for infringement, even if the dosage or method of manufacture differs slightly.
6. Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd., Delhi High Court (2011)
Facts:
Natco Pharma produced generic Sorafenib (cancer drug) allegedly covered by Bayer’s patent.
Decision & Ratio:
Court conducted claim-by-claim comparison.
Natco’s product matched every element of the claim, establishing literal infringement.
Injunction granted.
Significance:
Strengthened the principle that literal infringement focuses strictly on claim language, not on commercial use, intent, or minor modifications.
Key Observations from Indian Jurisprudence
Literal infringement is strictly claim-focused, especially in pharmaceuticals and biotech.
Indian courts often rely on detailed chemical/technical comparison of patented compounds.
Injunctions are typically granted when literal infringement is established, unless patent validity is challenged.
The doctrine is narrower than the doctrine of equivalents, which considers functional equivalence.
Summary Table of Key Cases:
| Case | Patent Type | Infringement Focus | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bayer v. Union of India | Ciprofloxacin | Exact chemical match | Literal infringement, injunction granted |
| Roche v. Cipla | Erlotinib | Exact chemical structure | Literal infringement, relief to patentee |
| Monsanto v. Nuziveedu | Bt Cotton | Patented gene | Literal infringement, injunction granted |
| Novartis v. Union of India | Imatinib Mesylate | Product vs. claim | Patent invalid; literal infringement not applicable |
| Bayer v. Natco | Sorafenib | Exact match of compound | Literal infringement, injunction granted |
RELATED Blog
comments