The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge in favour of Cipla in respect to the injunction denied to Roche to prevent the manufacture and marketing of Tarceva. Roche had appealed against the grant of this interim injunction, which was decided upon taking public interest into consideration in deciding the4 balance of convenience while finding the two parties being equally pitted.

The Double Bench while deciding upon the matter raised a doubt as to the validity of the patent which was claimed to be infringed and denied the establishment of a prima facie case necessitating the grant of an injunction. Cipla’s challenge to the valid existence of the patent was stated to be credible and triable. As regards public policy and the pricing of Cipla’ generic version of the drug, the Court concurred with the opinion of the Single Judge, that public interest in greater public access to a life saving drug will have to outweigh the public interest in granting an injunction to Roche. The appeal was dismissed with Costs amounting to Rs. 5 Lakhs to be paid to Cipla within a period of four weeks.