Bench:Ajay Mohan Goel
18 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
18 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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 v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 by the defendant's manufacturing and sale of generic versions of Empagliflozin and related formulations, including products sold under the trade mark 'Linares-E'.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, represented by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and its Indian subsidiary, sought an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited for allegedly infringing their Indian Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience, leading to the grant of temporary relief.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 268846. The patent covers pharmaceutical products like Empagliflozin and related formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an injunction.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The suit concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 related to the medicinal product Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted the requested restraint.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The applicants (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed applications seeking interim directions against the respondents (MSN Laboratories and others) for alleged infringement of their patent covering the compound Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not laid any credible challenge to the validity of the patent, thus tilting the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, filed applications seeking interim directions against respondents (including MSN Laboratories and others) for infringing their patent rights related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not presented a credible challenge to the patent's validity and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, filed applications seeking interim directions to restrain respondents from infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not presented a credible challenge to the patent's validity and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED v.THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS, BOUDHIK SAMPADA BHAVAN, DWARKA, SECTOR-32, PLOT 14 NEW DELHI-400037; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO. KG
The plaintiff (MSN Laboratories) filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 243301. The defendants argued that the petition was time-barred as it was filed more than three years after the patent grant date. The court dismissed the applications, holding that the limitation period for challenging a patent is not necessarily from the date of grant but when the right to sue accrues, and affirming its territorial jurisdiction.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The applicants (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma) filed applications seeking interim directions to restrain the respondents (MSN Laboratories and others) from infringing their patent rights over the medicinal product, Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not laid a credible challenge to the validity of the patent and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
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.
Boehinder 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.
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.