Interim Order
187 interim order decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Interim Order Decisions
187 cases | Page 4 of 7
Intervet International B.V. v.Reyaansh Healthcare
The plaintiffs, holders of Indian Patent 283279 for the veterinary product Fluralaner, filed a suit against Reyaansh Healthcare for manufacturing and selling Fluralaner tablets under the brand Flurashield without a license. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product until further hearing.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd v.Ashish Padia & Anr.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 418294, titled "BONDED FUSION BOWL," registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court issued interim orders addressing procedural matters and restraining both parties from engaging in conduct that hinders each other's business during the pendency of the proceedings.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent IN 426553 by alleging that the claims were broadened beyond the original filing scope, violating Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued an interim order addressing procedural matters (CM 61/2023) and directed notice to all parties for further consideration of the main petition.
Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the Defendant's fuel tank cap infringes their patent (IN427110) and registered design (275676). The court passed several orders, including allowing an exemption from pre-litigation mediation and granting interim relief regarding the production of impugned products.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of his process patent related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The dispute centered on whether the Defendants' product was made using the patented process, and how to balance the need for evidence with the protection of Defendants' trade secrets.
Adama India Private Limited v.Fmc Corporation & Anr.
Adama India Private Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) does not infringe Patent No. IN 298645 held by FMC Corporation. The court, while addressing an interim application, granted a temporary restraint on the defendants from contacting distributors or regulatory authorities to prevent business hindrance.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court disposed of several interlocutory applications (I.A.) in the patent dispute between Novartis Ag and Natco Pharma Limited. The defendant withdrew its counter claim seeking invalidity of the suit patent, and the court allowed the defendant to file additional documents after imposing conditions.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis Ag appealed against an order that set aside a patent grant (IN'414518) on the ground of procedural lapses. Novartis argued that the Single Judge misinterpreted Rule 55, which pertains only to pre-grant opposition procedures, not application examination under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found issues regarding the merging of proceedings and directed notice to be issued.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, which had declined its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the decline order was non-reasoned and inconsistent with previous judicial decisions. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties to file detailed submissions, brief notes, and relevant documentation before proceeding with the appeal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings & Ors. v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The petitioner (Bristol Myers Squibb) filed an application seeking correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previous order concerning its US patent infringement suit against Apotex Inc. Separately, the court allowed the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals) to file its written statement after condoning the delay.
Chasvinder Singh v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
Anita Agarwal v.Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
Imberatek Llc v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order in CS(COMM) 763/2022 addressing several interlocutory applications filed by Imberatek Llc against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed the plaintiff to file confidential documents related to the suit patent under strict confidentiality terms.
S. Bir Pal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company and Ors.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, S. Bir Pal Singh sought interim protection against Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company. The court issued a crucial order directing Respondent No. 1 not to create any third-party rights in four specific registered trademarks associated with 'AKALI PATRIKA.' This protective measure ensures the status quo is maintained while the main litigation proceeds, setting a key date for further hearing.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Mr X Trading As Messrs Amar Medical Store & Ors.
Boehringer Ingelheim International sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a suit concerning its pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff asserted rights over its trademarks and distinctive trade dress, which it claimed constituted original artistic works under the Copyright Act. While the court allowed the application for interim relief, it mandated that notice be issued to the Defendants before execution of the order, setting the stage for further litigation regarding brand protection.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh Co v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing/importing generic versions of medicines covered by their Indian Patent No. 243301, which relates to Linagliptin compounds. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a good prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing products.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant, Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd., filed two interlocutory applications before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of I.A. 12819/2022 as infructuous based on the counsel's submission. Furthermore, the application seeking leave to file additional documents (I.A. 12818/2022) was allowed.
Usha International Limited v.Mr Haseen Ahmed Trading As Tusha Sewing Machine Co
The plaintiff, Usha International Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was adopting the deceptively similar mark 'TUSHA' in relation to sewing machines, infringing upon the plaintiff's well-known mark 'USHA'. The court granted an interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize all infringing goods manufactured under the disputed marks.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
The suit was filed by Pfizer Inc seeking an injunction against the infringement of Patent No. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. The court condoned the delay in filing replications and made the existing ad-interim injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The petitioner filed an application alleging that the defendant violated a prior injunction by offering to supply Eltrombopag Olamine to the Government. The court examined whether this offer, made under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970, constituted contempt.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Anupam Singh & Ors.
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking protection of its confidential IBR technology, which was developed by key employees who later joined a competing entity (Defendant No.3). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants disclosed this proprietary information, leading to similar patent applications being filed by Defendant No.3, naming the former employees as inventors.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors
The Plaintiff, Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the Defendants for infringing its patented ECOMax-HE Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATC) and copyrighted drawings. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants obtained confidential information and drawings while their partners were employees of the Plaintiff's customer, Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Limited. The court allowed various interim applications and ordered a local commission to inspect the Defendants' manufacturing process.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Msn Laboratories Limited
This order was passed in an interim application filed by the Plaintiffs (Astrazeneca Ab). The Defendant (MSN Laboratories Limited), through its counsel, requested a restraint on commercial launch while challenging the patent's validity and rights under Section 107(A) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories for alleged infringement of its patent (No. 237430) covering Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases, specifically related to the drug NILOTINIB/TASIGNA. The dispute arose from an Office Memorandum indicating that the Defendant was being considered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for manufacturing this patented preparation.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, listing the defendant for procurement of 'SACUBITRIL + VALSARTAN'.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.