Judge Profile

D.K. Deshmukh

4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent defendant favorable · Dec 23, 2004

Novartis Ag And Anr. v.Mehar Pharma And Anr.

Bombay High Court · null

Novartis sought an interim injunction restraining Mehar Pharma from manufacturing, selling, or exporting its anti-cancer drug 'VEENAT', which was alleged to infringe Novartis's Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for 'B-crystalline form of imatinib Mesyiate salt'. The court ultimately denied the temporary injunction, citing concerns about disrupting the supply of this life-saving drug in India.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2003

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiffs, a television programming company, filed suit against the defendants for breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information regarding their original work titled 'Krish Kanhaiyya'. The dispute centered on the unauthorized production and broadcasting of a serial based on the plaintiffs' concept by the defendants. The court found that there was unlawful copying and infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 2, 2002

Hindustan Composites Ltd. v.Jasbir Singh Randhawa And Anr.

Bombay High Court · Contempt petition No. 72/98 (implied)

Hindustan Composites Ltd. filed a petition alleging that Respondent No. 1, an employee, used confidential information and processes to promote and run Respondent No. 2, which manufactured identical products. The court found that Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 committed contempt by continuing production despite prior injunctions, leading to fines and the striking off of their defense in the underlying suit.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 2, 2001

Smithkline Beecham Consumer v.Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr.

Bombay High Court · N/A

Smithkline Beecham Consumer filed a suit alleging that Hindustan Lever Limited and others had infringed their copyright related to the drawings and precision moulds used for manufacturing specific models of toothbrushes. The plaintiffs claimed ownership over these designs, which were integral to the product's appearance and function. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs had attempted to file multiple suits in different courts without valid justification, thereby amounting to an abuse of process.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →