India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 103 of 161 · 4,815 total
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v.Ms Originals Clothing And Ors
In this execution petition, Tommy Hilfiger sought to enforce a settlement decree against Ms Originals Clothing for continuing the sale of its branded goods. Despite having previously settled, the Decree Holder alleged that the Judgment Debtors continued infringing on their trademarks both in physical stores and online platforms. The court allowed the application for local commissioners to conduct an investigation into post-decree sales and directed the Judgment Debtors to provide access to relevant financial records.
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 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.
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.
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.
Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. v.Ramesh Kumar Malhotra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. against Ramesh Kumar Malhotra regarding the disputed trademark 'ROSABAGH'. The plaintiffs, who own and use the mark for furniture and artifacts, successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of a similar mark for a banquet hall constituted potential dilution and infringement. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an immediate restraint on the defendant's use of the contested trademark until further hearing.
Mohit Varshney Proprietor, M/S Raj Food Products v.Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd.
In a complex cross-suit involving competing snack food brands, the Delhi High Court addressed trademark disputes between M/s Raj Food Products ('DECY') and Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd. ('LACY'). While acknowledging that the Plaintiff (Serveshwar) had prior registration of 'LACY', the court sought to balance interests by directing the Defendant (Raj Food) not to expand its product line under 'DECY' until further decision on injunctions. Crucially, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable resolution for both trademark and packaging disputes.
Kamla Kant And Company Llp v.Sanjay Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deemed abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under Indian law. The Petitioner argued that despite procedural delays involving multiple patent agents, they had taken steps to respond to the First Examination Reports (FERs). Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of abandonment rules, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Havells India Limited v.Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd
Havells India Limited filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter's VENICE PRIME series of ceiling fans was a blatant imitation and substantial reproduction of Havells' registered ENTICER/ENTICER ART designs. The Plaintiff asserted its market dominance and unique design features protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The Delhi High Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully made out a prima facie case for infringement and balance of convenience in its favor.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deeming abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under the Indian Patents Act. The Petitioner argued that delays, stemming from changes in legal counsel and communication issues with the initial patent agent, led to the abandonment orders. Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of the Patent Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 5706/DELNP/2011) by the Asst. Controller of Patents. The primary issue addressed in this order was the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was ultimately granted.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft appealed an order by The Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 9149/DELNP/2014). The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibodies claimed were naturally occurring and thus non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Act. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including condonation of delay, and issued notice for further arguments.
Evonik Operations Gmbh Address For Service In India Lexorbis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Evonik Operations GmbH filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 201714031257). The rejection was based on the finding that the specification lacked a working example necessary to disclose the best method of performing the invention. This procedural order sets out the next steps for the appeal, requiring the respondent to file written submissions.
ITC Limited v.Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors
The Plaintiff, Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the Defendants for infringing its patented ECOMax-HE Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATC) and copyrighted drawings. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants obtained confidential information and drawings while their partners were employees of the Plaintiff's customer, Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Limited. The court allowed various interim applications and ordered a local commission to inspect the Defendants' manufacturing process.
Shivan Ramachandran & Anr. v.Madhur Sharma
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on May 27, 2022. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents while simultaneously accepting a significant undertaking from the defendant. The defendant agreed to withdraw pending trademark applications and cease all sales of the disputed products, providing an affidavit detailing existing stock and past sales figures.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 229051 concerning pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The court clarified that the Department's Public Notice was merely to collate local manufacturers and did not constitute Government Authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the suit was decreed granting a permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against MSN Laboratories for alleged infringement of Patent No. 283133 concerning Pyrrolopyrimidine compounds. The dispute also involved whether a public notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted government authorization to manufacture the patented drug, Ribociclib.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing their patents related to the High Efficiency Video Encoding (HEVC/H.265) standard. The Plaintiffs also seek to add further patents and devices that may infringe their rights.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Patent No. 237430 (Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases). The dispute centered on whether the Department of Pharmaceuticals' public notice constituted government authorization to manufacture the drug Nilotinib. The court, without considering the merits of infringement or validity, directed that Msn Laboratories must provide four weeks' advance notice before commencing commercial production.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161. The court examined the defendant's affidavit, which claimed no commercial activity related to the patented drug ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE/ REVOLADE. Furthermore, the Department of Pharmaceuticals clarified that its public notice was merely for collating local manufacturers and did not constitute government authorization under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Regents of the University of California v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California filed an appeal challenging the rejection of their patent application, No.10336/DELNP/2013, titled "Blockade Of Inflammatory Proteases With Theta - Defensins." The initial rejections were based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. After subsequent amendments, the application was rejected again under S. 59 r/w S.15. This order sets out procedural directions for the parties to file replies and written submissions before the next hearing.
Pfizer Inc And Ors v.Jodas Expoim Pvt Ltd And Anr
The court framed several issues in this commercial suit concerning alleged patent infringement by the defendants against Pfizer Inc and Ors. The core questions revolve around whether the defendants' activities infringe two specific Indian Patents (No. 218291 and No. 209251) and if the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction or damages.
A India Print House Through Its Partners Kunal Kapoor and Vibha Kapoor v.Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of A India Print House against Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was deceptively using the identical trademark, trade-dress, and color scheme ('MERCURY') for playing cards, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off. The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The case involves FMC Corporation and others against Insecticides India Limited regarding patent infringement. The defendant has indicated they will not launch a product until certain patents expire.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd for infringing its registered patent (IN'816) related to Sitagliptin. The dispute was subsequently settled under the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.