The apex court was informed that the two companies on May 30 had arrived at a settlement before the Delhi High Court to close the patent dispute between them over the drug erlotinib hydrochloride, manufactured and sold by Roche under the name of Tarceva and Cipla's Erlocip.
Cipla had filed a petition challenging the High Court's November 27, 2015 order holding that it had infringed Roche's patent in a lung cancer drug.
However, after the May 30 settlement, Cipla moved the apex court seeking to withdraw the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the 2015 decision.
Cipla's lawyer mentioned the matter before a bench of Justices R K Agrawal and S K Kaul and said both the firms -- Cipla Ltd and F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd-- have arrived at a settlement over the dispute and now they do not want to pursue the SLP.
The bench, which took up the matter today itself, allowed the application seeking permission to withdraw the petition.
Hours after the court proceeding, a joint statement was issued stating that "Cipla and Roche/OSI confirm that they have reached an agreement regarding the ongoing patent disputes relating to the anti-cancer medicine Erlotinib Hydrochloride.
"As part of the agreement, the companies have ceased all relevant patent litigation on this product and Cipla has acknowledged the validity of the patent rights of Roche," the statement issued by the Swiss Pharma said.
A division bench of the high court had held that Cipla's lung cancer medicine, Erlocip, was one polymorphic form of the erlotinib hydrochloride compound, which may exist in several forms, and Roche's patent claim was not limited to any one such version.
While Cipla's Erlocip, launched in 2008, costs Rs 1,600 per tablet, Roche's Tarceva cost Rs 4,800 per tablet. Roche was granted the patent in India for erlotinib hydrochloride on February 23, 2007.
The high court had also imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on Cipla. The bench has remanded the case to the single judge for rendition of Cipla's accounts for determination of profits from sale of Erlocip.
The verdict of the division bench had come on the pleas of Cipla and Roche, both of which had challenged the single judge's order of September 7, 2012.
The single judge, in his order, had held that Cipla was not infringing Roche's patent and had refused to grant any injunction against the Indian company.
The single judge had also refused to revoke the patent of the Swiss company as sought by Cipla.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)