Vifor (International) Limited v. Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Every founder who has ever invested years and millions into developing a new product knows the uneasy feeling of watching a competitor inch closer to copying their invention. Patents exist to give innovators breathing room, a temporary monopoly in exchange for telling the world how their invention works. But what happens when a court interprets that monopoly so narrowly that it only protects the recipe, not the cake itself? That was the exact crisis Vifor (International) Limited faced, and the Delhi High Court's response reshaped how product-by-process patents are understood in India.

Vifor (International) Limited, the patent holder, found itself in a dispute against Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd. The conflict centered on a product-by-process patent, a special category of patent where the invention is claimed by describing both the product and the process used to make it. At some point in the proceedings, an interim injunction order was issued that restricted Vifor's claims to only the process aspect of its patent. In effect, the lower ruling told Vifor that its monopoly covered the method of manufacturing, but not necessarily the product that emerged from that method. This narrow reading threatened to gut the very protection Vifor had secured under the Patent Act, 1970, prompting Vifor to appeal to the Delhi High Court.

Vifor argued forcefully that the lower court's interpretation was fundamentally flawed. A product-by-process patent, Vifor contended, cannot be artificially sliced into two separate protections, one for the process and one for the product. The true measure of a patent's scope lies in the claims themselves, and those claims define the full extent of the monopoly the patentee was granted. By limiting the injunction to only the process, the lower court had effectively handed competitors a roadmap to make the same product using minor variations, escaping infringement entirely. On the other side, the respondents and the prior court reasoning leaned toward a restrictive reading, treating the process language in the claims as a ceiling rather than a descriptor. The legal friction was clear: should claim construction honor the literal language of the patent, or should it respect the underlying purpose of granting a monopoly in the first place?

The Delhi High Court sided decisively with Vifor. The court clarified that the scope of a product-by-process patent is not inherently limited to only the process described. Proper claim construction, the court held, must allow coverage to encompass the resulting product unless the claims themselves explicitly restrict the protection. The court emphasized that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, and that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. This reasoning upheld the fundamental rationale of patent law, the exchange of disclosure for monopoly. The appeals were allowed, and the restrictive judgment that had narrowed Vifor's protection was set aside, restoring the broader scope of the patent holder's rights.

For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, this case delivers a critical lesson: never assume that a product-by-process patent will automatically be read as covering only the process. The strength of your patent lies in how your claims are drafted and how courts construe them. When filing, work closely with patent counsel to ensure your claims clearly articulate the product itself, not just the steps to make it. And if you ever face a narrow interpretation from a lower court, remember that the Delhi High Court has affirmed a broader, more protective standard. Your monopoly is only as wide as your claims, but it should never be artificially narrower than what the law intends to grant.