Delhi High Court
1680 cases · page 19 of 56
Showing 541–569Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Indoco Remedies Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Indoco Remedies Limited regarding the validity and infringement of patent IN 247381 for Apixaban was amicably resolved through mediation. The defendant acknowledged the patent's validity until its expiry date (September 17, 2022) and confirmed discontinuing all related activities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Metrochem Api Private Limited regarding patent infringement of Apixaban was amicably resolved through court-mediated conciliation. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that agreement.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
This suit was filed by Sanjay Mehra seeking permanent injunction against Sharad Mehra & Ors. for alleged infringement and passing off related to the 'SUPERON' trademark and associated intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the division of business assets, including IP, between two groups (SM Group and SDM Group) as per a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS). Although the Plaintiff argued jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ultimately found that arbitration was the intended forum for resolving disputes arising from the MOFS and Sale Deed.
Ace Technologies Corp & Ors. v.Communication Components Antenna Inc.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Ace Technologies Corp from manufacturing and selling antennae due to alleged infringement of Patent IN240893. The respondent claimed its patent covered a novel asymmetrical beam pattern for fixed antennas used in cellular networks. While the court found no grounds to interfere with the core interim relief, it modified the financial compliance terms, allowing the respondents to deposit a bank guarantee instead of cash.
Trex India Pvt. Ltd. v.Cde Asia Limited
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cde Asia Limited against Trex India Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of its Patent No. 3072491 and Design No. 2626292 concerning the product 'FM 120 CONEXUS'. The present appeal challenged the Single Judge's order, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act.
Leeford Healthcare Limited v.Vobb Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Leeford Healthcare Limited against Vobb Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, specifically concerning the medicinal cream brand 'DERMIFORD.' Given that the goods are pharmaceutical and the defendants had recently entered the market, the court held that Leeford would suffer grave injury without immediate protection. This order temporarily halts the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEO DERMIFORD' until further orders.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, seeking permanent injunctions against infringing Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against generic drug manufacturers, including Vee Excel Drugs, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of all interim injunction applications.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Pub)
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed cross-appeals concerning the validity and infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecom technology. The court affirmed that Ericsson's patents were prima facie essential and infringed, finding Intex to be an unwilling licensee. Despite arguments regarding SEPs being unknown in Indian law, the court upheld the necessity of FRAND compliance to ensure parity with global implementers.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies seeking permanent injunctions for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Furthermore, the court expressed concern regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at 'evergreening.' Consequently, all applications for injunction were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sought permanent injunctions against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, alleging infringement of Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across multiple connected suits. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting concerns about potential patent vulnerability due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling the products.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against Indian pharmaceutical companies for allegedly infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts by the plaintiffs towards 'evergreening.' Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Ericsson and Intex. The court examined whether the patents were essential, if Intex was infringing them, and if Intex had acted as an unwilling licensee despite Ericsson's FRAND commitments. Ultimately, the court found that the patents were prima facie valid and infringed, compelling Intex to pay the full royalty amount.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma seeking permanent injunction against various Indian pharmaceutical companies for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The court examined the applications for interim injunction and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the judge expressed concerns regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing the defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant sought a patent for 'Hygiene Wash,' a skin care preparation using wood vinegar derived from the Rhizophora apiculata tree. The Controller rejected the application, but the High Court found that the invention possessed an inventive step by identifying guaiacol-free wood vinegar and determining the optimal concentration (18-22%) to selectively target harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial lactic acid bacteria.
Microsoft Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 487/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on vague grounds, including failure to adhere to a non-defined 'method step format' and falling under Section 3(k) as an algorithm-based invention. The High Court found the Controller's reasoning lacking focus and unsustainable.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 4380/DELNP/2013) concerning pharmaceutical products for treating ischemia. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on prior art D-5/D-6 and Section 3(d), was flawed because these documents were not cited during the initial hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging design and trademark infringement against Pushpendra Yadav and others, specifically targeting water purifiers sold on Flipkart. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants' products infringed their registered Design No. 219309 for a water purifier and used deceptively similar marks like AQUA GRAND+ infringing KENT GRAND+. The Delhi High Court allowed the interim application, finding prima facie evidence of both design piracy and trademark infringement.
Alternative Gene Expression S L v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application, which held that the method of producing recombinant proteins by destruction of pupa was non-patentable under Section 3(b). The High Court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking reasoned justification despite detailed submissions from the appellant.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors.
The dispute concerned alleged patent infringement regarding Ecomax Solutions' Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATCS) against Energeo Building Solutions' AFCS. The court examined whether the defendants' system infringed the claims of IN 382118. The court found that the AFCS was prima facie dissimilar to the suit patent, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction application.
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v.Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited against a deceptively similar trademark registered by its former employees' company, Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was identical and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ALPHA' brand in real estate services. Given the respondent's dishonest adoption of the mark to ride on the petitioner's goodwill, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Anr
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentable subject matter. Biomoneta argued that their device offered unique features not present in the prior art, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd v.Controller General Of Patents, Design
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which had refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based primarily on the grounds that the subject matter lacked inventive step over existing prior art. Biomoneta highlighted the innovative nature of its device, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the refusal of their Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748 by the Controller on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the invention was novel, inventive, and not subject to the bar of Section 3(d). However, the High Court upheld the Controller's refusal.
Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation v.Meera Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a civil original trademark rectification petition filed by Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation against Meera Devi. The court found that the respondent's adoption and use of the similar mark 'BAL BIHARI SUPER' was dishonest, as it followed an earlier acknowledgment of the petitioner's rights by her husband. Given the identical nature of the goods (tobacco products) and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the Register.
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.