India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 95 · 2,847 total
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
AstraZeneca AB and another plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The defendant agreed to withdraw its counter-claim of invalidity and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour. The court disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement and granted refund of court fees to the plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca AB sued USV Private Limited for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the settlement, USV agreed to withdraw its invalidity counterclaim and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 157/2020. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, making the Settlement Agreement part of the decree.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian patents IN'056 and IN'246, while Nokia had filed a separate infringement suit (CS(COMM) 643/2025) against Asustek alleging infringement of patents IN'507 and IN'105. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Delhi High Court allowed Asustek to withdraw the revocation petitions and disposed of them with liberty to reinstitute proceedings in accordance with law if so required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG sued Torrent Pharmaceuticals for infringement of Indian Patent No. 275655 covering the anti-cancer drug Dabrafenib. Torrent accepted summons and voluntarily undertook not to manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any Dabrafenib-containing API or formulation during the patent's validity. The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking as part of the decree, effectively granting Novartis the relief of a permanent injunction without contest, while preserving Torrent's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act to use the compound for research purposes.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
MRF Limited, a well-known manufacturer of tyres and automotive products, filed suit against Mr. Aas Mohammed, who was operating under the trade name 'MRF Batteries' in New Delhi. MRF sought interim injunctions on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement of original artworks, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The Madras High Court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of MRF's registered trademarks across multiple classes (1, 9, 12, and 35), granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and ordered notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Incyte Holdings sued Macleods Pharmaceuticals for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering the novel compound Ruxolitinib, used in treating myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. Macleods had listed Ruxolitinib products as 'Under Development' in its US CTD Product List and was offering the API for sale on Pharmacompass. The defendant gave an undertaking not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity (expiring 12.12.2026), and the suit was disposed of with the undertaking binding the defendant while preserving its Section 107A research rights.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc has filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent for Application No. 202227024750. The court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, who accepted notice through counsel, with timelines set for filing reply and rejoinder.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed against the refusal of its patent application No. 450/DELNP/2015 directed to a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab/erlotinib), and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor. The Controller had refused the application citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning deficient on multiple grounds, including failure to properly assess synergistic technical advancement, mechanical application of Section 3(d) without analyzing enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and incorrect interpretation of Section 3(i) as barring the claimed product combination. The court remanded the matter for de novo reconsideration with directions to decide within six months.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Opella Healthcare Group, part of the Sanofi Group and registered proprietor of the well-known pharmaceutical trademark PHENSEDYL (used in India since 1995), sued Pureca Laboratories for adopting the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a copycat trade dress for identical cough syrup products. The Defendant's trademark registration (No. 3791026) and copyright registration (No. A-130319/2019) had already been cancelled by the Court in prior rectification proceedings. With the Defendant failing to appear and being set ex parte, the Court granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that the Defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims and that the Plaintiff had established both trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed a patent infringement suit against Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing in the allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at a project site in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The court extended the previously granted interim injunction until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks for further hearing.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed a patent revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent IN'206. Nokia had separately filed CS(COMM) 643/2025 alleging infringement of patent nos. 424507 and 338105. During pendency, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. Consequently, the Delhi High Court permitted withdrawal of the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
Hamilton Housewares, makers of the Milton Pickle Container, sued Yogi Products, makers of the Apex Pickle Container, alleging trade dress infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in their artistic works, industrial drawings, and product packaging. The parties settled the dispute through Consent Terms executed in court, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission encompassing all the injunction reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. The court accepted the Consent Terms as undertakings to the court and disposed of the suit accordingly.
SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.
SRF Limited has filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 296159 held by Arkema Inc & Anr. under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The court disposed of several procedural interlocutory applications—granting exemption from filing certain certificates, permitting additional documents, and issuing notice to the respondents. The matter has been listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on 27 October 2026.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd to withdraw its petition for revocation of AstraZeneca AB's patent IN235625. The petition was withdrawn due to a settlement between the parties. The court disposed of the petition and pending applications. The case highlights the importance of settlement in resolving intellectual property disputes. The patent in question was related to a pharmaceutical invention.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court has framed issues in a patent infringement case between Largan Precision Co. Ltd and Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors. The court has appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence and has directed the parties to adhere to a schedule for filing affidavits and completing cross-examination. The case relates to the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 395095.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is an appeal filed by Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, exemptions, and condonation of delay.
Mechmaark Filtechindia Private Limited v.Asawa Insulation Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent no. 532136, which was granted to respondent no. 1 (Asawa Insulation Pvt. Ltd.). The court issued notices and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antena Inc., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency'. The dispute involved multiple entities within the Rosenberger Group accused of manufacturing and selling infringing antennas.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
President And Fellows Of Harvard College v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Appellant appealed against the Controller General's refusal to grant a patent application concerning SC-β cells. The rejection was based on objections regarding definitiveness, non-patentability, and sufficiency of disclosure. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer due to significant changes in the claims.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
Scipharm Sarl v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Scipharm Sarl appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method enhancing engraftment of haematopoietic stem cells. The High Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to amend the claims by deleting claim no.1 and retaining claims 2 to 5, and remanded the matter back to the Controller's office for further consideration.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed arguments regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The order noted that a Division Bench had held that such a petition remains maintainable even after patent expiry or when an invalidity defence is raised in suit.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.