当前位置: X-MOL 学术Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A chapter called controversy: breaking down the Delhi high court appellate bench verdict in F Hoffmann-La Roche v Cipla Ltd
Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property ( IF 0.347 ) Pub Date : 2016-04-01 , DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2016.02.08
Eashan Ghosh

On 27 November 2015, an appellate bench of the Delhi High Court in F Hoffmann-La Roche v Cipla Ltd issued a 184-paragraph opinion, overturning in part a 2012 single judge decision and holding that Cipla had infringed Roche’s Indian patent over erlotinib hydrochloride. However, it turned out that large swathes of the appellate decision had been lifted verbatim from an article I co-authored for this journal in 2013. Alerted to the lapse, the bench issued a corrected order on 8 December 2015 and, in an unprecedented move, opted to expunge the plagiarized portions and issued an apology for the oversight. As a result, the rebooted ruling dives straight into the legal issues involved and, as this article posits, is no less explosive for its findings on merits than it was for the curious episode that created a buzz around it for all the wrong reasons. In doing so, the decision deviates from Indian precedent in a manner that could, in equal parts, be construed as path-breaking, unsettling and, above all, fiercely controversial.

中文翻译:

F Hoffmann-La Roche v Cipla Ltd案中的一章称为争议:打破德里高等法院上诉法院的判决

2015年11月27日,德里高等法院上诉庭在F Hoffmann-La Roche诉Cipla Ltd案上发表了184段的意见,部分推翻了2012年的单法官裁决,并裁定Cipla侵犯了罗氏在印度的盐酸埃洛替尼专利。但是,事实证明,我2013年与该杂志合着的一篇文章逐字逐句地撤消了上诉决定的大部分内容。当事者警惕这一失误,于2015年12月8日发布了更正命令,并采取了前所未有的行动,选择删除窃的部分并为此道歉。结果,重新启动的裁决直接涉及所涉及的法律问题,并且正如本文所假定的,它对案情实质的发现不亚于出于各种错误原因引起争议的好奇事件。
更新日期:2016-04-01
down
wechat
bug