Himachal Pradesh High Court
38 cases · page 2 of 2
Showing 31–37Boehinder Pharma v.Macleods Pharma
Boehinder Pharma filed an application seeking ad-interim relief to restrain Macleods Pharma from infringing its patent rights over 'Linagliptin'. The applicants argued that their patent was still valid and the respondent was manufacturing and selling the product under brands LINAMAC and LINAONE. The court, finding a prima facie case, granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing or selling Linagliptin.
Plaintiff No. 1 v.Defendants
The plaintiffs, owners of two patents covering the compound LINAGLIPTIN and its derivatives, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets under the brand name BRLENTA-5 without consent. The court found a prima facie case for injunction.
Dhanpat Seth And Others v.M/S Nilkamal Plastic Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction and damages, alleging that the defendant infringed their Patent No. 195917 for a device used for manually hauling agricultural produce. The court examined the patent's validity and found that the invention lacked inventive step, as it was merely a substitution of bamboo with plastic in a traditionally known item (Kilta).
Unknown v.Yogesh Mehra & Others
The plaintiffs argued that the court should not proceed with the civil suit while a statutory appeal was pending before the Statutory Authority. The defendant relied on a precedent (Dr. Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra & others) which established rules concerning counter-claims and patent revocation petitions. The court accepted the defendant's submissions regarding the applicability of the precedent and listed the matter for arguments.
Dhanpat Seth And Ors. v.Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.
The plaintiffs appealed against the rejection of their interim relief application seeking to restrain the defendant from infringing Patent No. 195917, which covered a plastic Kilta device for hauling agricultural produce. The defendant argued that the patent was fraudulently obtained and that the invention was merely an old traditional product (Kilta).
Dhanpat Seth And Ors. v.Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the respondent, alleging infringement of Patent No. 195917 for an agricultural hauling device. The court examined the claims and found that the patented device was merely an imitation of the traditional 'Kilta', lacking novelty or inventive step as per Section 2(j) of the Patents Act.
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. v.Suraj Industries Ltd.
The petitioner (Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd.) sought an ad interim injunction against the respondent (Suraj Industries Ltd.), alleging that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('ANGAN' with a flower device) for Vanaspati oil, causing passing off. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case and that granting the injunction would cause irreparable injury to the defendants.
SML Limited v.M/s Happy Agro Chemicals
SML Limited filed a patent infringement suit against M/s Happy Agro Chemicals, alleging that the defendant's product 'SELZIC' infringes their patent rights under Indian Patent No.282092. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their patent rights. However, the court dismissed the application due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the alleged wrong was not committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction.
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.