You are being redirected to the story the piece of content is found in so you can read it in context. Please click the following link if you are not automatically redirected within a couple seconds:
Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India [Delhi High Court Judgment]
Author: High Court of Delhi, Published on: 18 August 2009
Bayer states that Cipla’s generic version of Sorafanib, which, it is contended, is sold under the brand name “Soranib” would amount to a “spurious drug”. If Bayer’s contention were to prevail, every generic drug would ipso facto amount to a “spurious drug”, since they are deemed substitutes of originator (patented) drugs. Such interpretation is facially untenable and contrary to the intent of the Drugs Act...the present litigation was what may be characterized as a speculative foray; an attempt to “tweak” public policies through court mandated regimes. The petitioner, doubtless is possessed of vast resources and can engage in such pursuits. Yet, often, these attempts...achieve short term goals of keeping out competitors, through interim orders. That short term objective has been achieved, and the petitioner has successfully stalled an independent examination of Cipla’s application. Even though the writ petition cannot succeed, it would be a travesty of justice if the court does not direct realization of realistic costs, in this case.