Skip to main content

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a judgment regarding the procedure to be followed in patent infringement lawsuits. A brief summary of the findings of the court:

  1. An expert cannot give evidence beyond the scope of pleadings.
  2. When documents are being filed, there should be a report by the technical expert, not necessarily in the form of an affidavit, which enumerates the essential points to be made by the expert.
  3. In cases where an expert report is not filed, as long as the deposition of the expert is within the confines of the pleadings no difficulty will arise.
  4. Such an expert remains a witness of the party litigant examining her/him, and whom the party opposite has a right to cross-examine.
  5. Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) requires a plaint (as a counter-claim is) to contain facts constituting the cause of action. Thus, a party litigant defending a claim for infringement of patent on the ground of it being liable to be revoked (on one of the grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act 1970) would be required to plead particulars of that ground.
  6. A written statement to such counter-claim would require the patentee to plead why the invention is inventive. Merely pleading its non-obviousness or that it entails an inventive step would not constitute a defence.
  7. The issues in a case should be detailed and clearly defined, not general; and should crystallize the real issue in controversy.
  8. The onus of invalidity of the patent is on the defendant and the defendant should lead evidence on that issue in the first instance.
  9. The Bench recommended to the Chief Justice to refer this case to the Rules Committee (under Section 123 CPC) for framing of rules as to the conduct and procedure of in respect of proceedings before the court under the Patents Act.

The court was hearing applications in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing its drug patent. The defendants had submitted that an affidavit filed by an expert witness, along with supporting documents, went beyond the scope of plaintiff’s pleadings.

F.Hoffmann-La-Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Dr. Reddys & Anr, and F.Hoffmann-La-Roche Ltd. & Anr. v Natco; before the Delhi High Court; Order dated 21.03.2017

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
News & Updates
Nov 04, 2025

In a remarkable conclusion to one of India’s longest-running trademark disputes, the order authored by Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Hon’ble High Court

DELHI HIGH COURT BRINGS 25-YEAR “CELEBRATIONS” TRADEMARK DISPUTE TO A WHOLESOME CLOSE
News & Updates
Nov 02, 2025

Partner Litigation, Dhruv Anand, spoke to Times of India for its dive-deep article on ‘Stars v AI’ giving a 360 degree roundup of what actually makes

Stars vs AI: Dhruv Anand speaks to ToI about personality rights and the intent behind protecting them
Thought Leadership
Oct 22, 2025

‘First published on Lexology’ By: Pravin Anand, Vaishali R Mittal and Siddhant Chamola A. INTRODUCTION Standards‑essential patents (“SEPs”)

Interim Licences vs Anti Interim Injunctions: a Cross Border Stand Off
Thought Leadership
Oct 16, 2025

‘First published on Lexology’ By: Safir Anand and Omesh Puri The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks has issued a

Indian Trade Marks Office issues Office Order – Streamlining Registry Function