The Delhi High Court recently clarified the interpretation of the term ‘identical’ under Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant’s infringed their patent to manufacture their product and sought disclosure of the manufacturing process. However, the Court held that for Section 104A to apply, it must be proven that the two products are ‘identical.’ Since the Defendant’s product was only a similar biologic and not identical, the Court refused to grant relief. By relying upon precedents, the Court emphasized that ‘identical’ means ‘exactly alike,’ and does not mean ‘similar.’ Mere similarity does not satisfy the threshold under Section 104A, and thus, limits the scope for compulsory disclosure in cases.

Source: F. Hoffman La Roche AG & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited [CS(Comm) 159/2024]