Interim Order
193 interim order decisions from Delhi High Court - Orders.
Interim Order Decisions
193 cases | Page 5 of 7
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'.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking protection of its patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes containing thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin used as a fungicide. The court addressed several procedural applications before granting an interim order regarding the injunction request.
BASF SE v.SEEDLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
BASF SE filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Seedlings India Private Limited and others for infringing its Patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes used in fungicides/insecticides. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' products were approved under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, despite previous undertakings by related group companies not to infringe the patent.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, developers of the Fantasy Sports Mobile Application 'EXCHANGE22', filed a suit alleging that the Defendants operate a competing application named MYFAB11 which infringes upon their copyrighted works. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using or making available the infringing content and directed them to suspend domain name registration and remove the app.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
The suit sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 270765 concerning Baricitinib (Barinat). The patent holder alleged that licensed companies were marketing and exporting the product outside its approved use (COVID-19) for Rheumatoid Arthritis, primarily through e-commerce platforms like Indiamart.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Azista Industries Private Limited & Ors
Pfizer Inc and others filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Azista Industries Private Limited and others for infringing their patented drug 'Palbociclib'. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex parte injunction.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered patents related to Top Hammer Rock Drilling Tools. The court passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from commercializing the infringing products and directed the defendants to disclose specific financial and production details on affidavit.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Jigs Chemical Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1, alleging that the defendant was advertising and selling 'APIXABAN' (a patented pharmaceutical preparation) as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the manufacturing and sale of APIXABAN.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1 for infringing their patented pharmaceutical preparation 'APIXABAN'. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 was advertising and selling the product through various platforms including Indiamart and Tradeindia. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Angle Bio Pharma from manufacturing or selling APIXABAN without authorization, and directed the intermediary websites to take down the listings.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants (Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.) for infringement of Patent No. 259932 ("ARRANGING HANDOVER") by various mobile devices. The court addressed applications regarding adding new claims and devices during the pendency of the suit.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
PRECISE BIO PHARMA PVT. LTD. v.ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS & ANR.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a stay against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. This order rejected the pre-grant opposition filed by Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding Indian Patent Application No. 2471/DELNP/2013 under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca Ab, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited, was infringing their Indian Patent IN 297581, which covers the anticancer drug Osimertinib (marketed as Tagrisso). The plaintiffs claimed the defendant was soliciting large orders to manufacture and sell the infringing product without authorization.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.S4S Security Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the suit filed by G4S Limited against S4S Security Services, which alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court noted that G4S holds valid registrations for its marks, including 'G4S'. After considering the allegations of deceptive similarity in the defendant's use of 'S4S', the Court issued notice to the defendants and granted an interim restraint order against them pending further proceedings.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
The case involved patent infringement concerning Vivo mobile phones. A specific application was filed by defendant No. 3 (Xihi Technology Private Limited) seeking deletion from the parties array, claiming they only manufacture mobile chargers. The court accepted the undertaking given by D-3 not to infringe and passed an interim injunction against them.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors
The plaintiff, Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely infringing its patents related to parts of the SANDVIK VSI Crusher. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting infringement and irreparable loss.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The court heard arguments regarding an application (I.A. 8386/2019) concerning the continuation and absoluteness of a previous interim order dated 31.05.2019, which restrained Ztt India Private Limited from infringing patents IN 241433 and IN 280211. The defendant affirmed that they had no objection to the existing restraint continuing until the suit's disposal.
The Foundry Visionmongers Limited v.Mesmor Studio Private Limited
The Foundry Visionmongers Limited filed a suit against Mesmor Studio Private Limited alleging rampant piracy and unauthorized use of its specialized animation software, including NUKE, NUKE X, and NUKE STUDIO. The plaintiff asserted ownership of copyright in these 'Computing Programs,' which are integral to the film and television industry's visual effects. Based on technical evidence showing 5059 infringement hits across at least 36 computer systems, the court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing Indian Patent Nos. 247381, which covers the subject matter related to Apixaban. The court granted the ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in or advertising the infringing generic products 'Apixaz' and 'Apiquis', and ordered the permanent delisting of such advertisements.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Hetero Labs Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its salts/solvates. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting defendants to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Cross Fit Llc v.Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym And Fitness Centre for using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in the fitness industry. Given that the defendant had failed to appear despite service, the court appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is mandated to visit the premises, remove all infringing signage and advertisements, seize stock of materials bearing the disputed mark, and prepare an inventory report for the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Harman Finochem Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was violating and infringing their registered patent (IN 209816) related to Sitagliptin. Despite previous assurances, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the defendant continued to advertise and export infringing products. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from further infringement.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic Apixaban product that infringes Indian Patent No. 247381. The court, relying on previous orders regarding the same patent, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing generic product.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, a Spanish company operating in India, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse' (IN 329620) and violated its copyrights. The infringement was alleged based on the defendants' tender bid submitted to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
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.