Defendant Favorable
at Himachal Pradesh High Court
14 defendant favorable decisions from Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
14 cases | Page 1 of 1
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare
The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Femilab Healthcare & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application seeking permanent injunction to restrain Femilab Healthcare from infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Novartis v. Natco), observed that the patent in issue had already expired. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/S. Salus Pharmaceuticals And Another
The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated urgency and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding when they became aware of the infringement and noted a significant delay between knowledge/patent grant and filing the suit.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patents and design rights concerning axial fans. The defendants moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law because the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Co. KG v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs sought an injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The defendant challenged the plaint's validity, arguing that the suit was barred by law under Section 53(4) of the Patents Act or not properly filed. The court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants (Dr. Reddy's Laboratories) for infringing their patent No. 268846, covering Empagliflozin products. The court heard applications concerning the continuation and vacation of an existing ad-interim injunction.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) sought confirmation of an interim injunction restraining the defendants (Msn Laboratories) from infringing their patent (IN 268846) related to Empagliflozin. The court addressed two main issues: the merits of the injunction and whether the defendant could challenge it without a written statement, ultimately allowing the defendant's application for vacation.
The North Face Apparel Corp. v.Pranav Kant Sharma
The North Face Apparel Corp. filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the dismissal of its application for temporary injunction against Pranav Kant Sharma (North Face Adventure Tours), alleging trademark infringement due to deceptive similarity. The respondent argued that since they operate in different classes of goods (Class 39 vs. appellant's classes), there is no likelihood of confusion or deception. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that because the parties trade in different classes, the appellant failed to establish 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).
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.