{"id":11942,"date":"2025-11-19T10:50:05","date_gmt":"2025-11-19T10:50:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11942"},"modified":"2025-11-19T10:53:15","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T10:53:15","slug":"credible-challenge-to-patent-and-patent-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/credible-challenge-to-patent-and-patent-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Credible Challenge to Patent and Patent Infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Brief Head Note<\/span><\/h2>\n

Interim injunction refused in IN\u2019645 despite admitted infringement; patent held highly vulnerable. The Court refused to grant an interim injunction, holding that the patent is highly vulnerable on multiple grounds: prior claiming by FMC\u2019s own earlier patent IN 269104, lack of novelty and inventive step over cited prior art. Relying on the \u201ccredible challenge\u201d principle laid down in F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla, Ericsson v. Lava, and Interdigital v. Xiaomi, the Court observed that only 19 days of patent life remained, Natco had already launched the product after obtaining regulatory approvals, and monetary compensation would suffice for the short remaining period.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n