India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 168 of 295 · 7,068 total
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Mr. Mahaveer Chand
The contempt petition was filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp alleging non-compliance with a previous court order and settlement agreement concerning patent IN' 816. The petitioner claimed that the respondent continued dealing in products covered by the patent, specifically generic versions of Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate. The Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit with an unconditional apology.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addressed an application seeking dismissal of a patent revocation petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court examined Section 64 of the Patents Act and the concept of a 'person interested'.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.201817048074), which covered a crystalline form of compound c28. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as the drug was considered known and lacked enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Daewoong sought to introduce additional data demonstrating superior properties like stability and dissolution rates. The High Court accepted the application for additional documents but framed two critical issues: whether this post-filing data is admissible, and if the crystalline form ultimately meets Section 3(d) requirements.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller. The said order rejected the patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone' on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Ms Aman Engineering Works v.Registrar Trade Marks Trade Marks Registry New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the status of two trademark applications, 'RITE KRANTI' and 'B&M KRANTI,' which are subject to review regarding potential abandonment. The core legal question revolves around whether applications for abandoning these trademarks could be accepted after a significant passage of time. Furthermore, the court noted that the Petitioner had previously filed an opposition against these very marks in 2020, adding complexity to the ongoing dispute.
Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. v.Ab Petrochem
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. against Ab Petrochem, recognizing the Plaintiffs' established rights over the MINDA trademark and its variants. The court found that the Defendant was operating under infringing marks (AB MINDA) in the oil and grease sector. To enforce this interim relief, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing goods, and inventory relevant business records.
SOTKON SP SLU v.WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PVT. LTD.
The case involves the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's patent and copyright rights related to a waste management system. The Defendants are accused of infringing the Plaintiff's patent by submitting a tender for a similar waste management technology.
Pfizer Products Inc v.D Rawal
The contempt petition was filed by Pfizer Products Inc alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. The respondent submitted an affidavit stating that they had applied to the DCGI for permission to manufacture and market the new drug, Tofacitinib, under New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019. They undertook not to commercialize the product until the patent expiry date.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 29, 2021. The original patent application (No. 201911010599) for a device and process was rejected primarily on the ground of lacking inventive step.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Ms Glowsun India Labs Private Limited
Bristol-Myers Squibb filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ms Glowsun India Labs for infringing its patent (IN 247381) related to the drug APIXABAN. The parties subsequently resolved their dispute amicably through mediation, leading to a final settlement.
Ferring B.V. v.Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Ferring B.V. filed a suit alleging infringement of Patent IN 387567, which covered RTS Carbetocin for preventing post-partum haemorrhage. The Plaintiffs argued that manufacturing occurred while the patent was validly granted in February 2022. However, the court found merit in the Defendants' contention that since the grant order was subsequently set aside by a writ petition, there was no valid patent to sustain the infringement suit.
Novartis AG v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd and Metrochem Api Private Limited for infringing its patent (No. 233161) covering 'Eltrombopag Olamine', the API in Revolade. The court found that both defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and admitted they had not manufactured or commercially sold the patented product, leading to a decree granting permanent injunction during the patent's term.
Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Faizi Khan
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark infringement suit filed by Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Faizi Khan regarding the use of similar marks, specifically '0'/'ZERO' versus '00', on respective products. The court noted the dispute over consumer confusion and directed the defendant to consider modifying their mark or label design. Crucially, the defendant was ordered to cease manufacturing fresh stock using the disputed marks pending further proceedings.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Neeram Garg & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning the brand SAKRNI PLASTER, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on April 7, 2022. The court granted exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding document filing and advance notice service due to urgency. Crucially, the court allowed an application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize infringing products and inspect the Defendants' premises.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited alleging infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs, seeking permanent injunction and declaration that the Cease and Desist Notice was unjustifiable. The plaintiff argued that the design was common use in the industry and liable for rectification due to lack of novelty. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous, noting that the registered design's protection period had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited, seeking permanent injunction against alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification or revocation. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registration period for the design had expired.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 6500/DELNP/2011). The court first condoned a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, and subsequently granted further time to the Respondent to file their reply.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Natco Pharma Limited
The judgment addresses multiple applications within a commercial suit concerning pharmaceutical patents. The court disposed of an application regarding electronic records and issued directions on several other pending matters, including contempt proceedings related to the sale of Afatinib tablets.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited seeking permanent injunction regarding alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification, while also challenging the defendant's Cease and Desist Notice. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registered design rights had expired.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617023236) for a solid preparation containing Tofogliflozin in monohydrate crystal form. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) because it was merely a new use/form of a known drug without enhanced efficacy.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The court addressed two matters concerning the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301, which covers the compound Linagliptin. The proceedings involved procedural steps such as treating a plaint as a petition and returning counter statements under objections.
Deepak Singh v.Bunty Raghav (Producer) and others
Deepak Singh filed a petition seeking interim relief against producers (Respondents) who were making a film based on his book, 'Janhit Mein Jaari'. The core dispute revolved around copyright infringement. While the High Court noted that the civil suit was pending before the Trial Court and emphasized the need for evidence regarding similarity between the book and the film, it ultimately directed the parties to proceed with the trial court's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., ensuring the existing interim relief continued until a final decision.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.M/S Vijay Goel & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants' application seeking further time to file their written statement in a trademark infringement suit. The court emphasized that despite pandemic-related considerations, the defendants were fully aware of the proceedings and failed to adhere to strict timelines. While denying the extension, the court also directed the defendants to file an affidavit detailing the quantum and sales figures of products using the disputed 'RPG' mark.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited. v.Deepak Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics, ordering the cancellation and rectification of a conflicting trademark registered by Deepak Arora ('MARC HEAVEN'). The court found that 'MARC HEAVEN' was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'BLUE HEAVEN,' particularly due to the appropriation of the dominant feature 'Heaven.' Citing Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, the judgment held that the Respondent's registration lacked distinctive character and caused public confusion.