India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 111 of 164 · 4,909 total
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd challenged the Controller General of Patents' order that deemed its patent application, relating to novel Cholecystokini Receptor Ligands, as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the abandonment was based on procedural failures and clerical errors by agents, not due to lack of interest in the invention. The Madras High Court acknowledged the violation of timelines but emphasized principles of natural justice, ultimately restoring the application for fresh consideration.
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.
Vifor International Ltd v.Unijules Life Sciences Limited
The dispute involved allegations of infringement regarding Ferric Carboxymaltose protected under Indian Patent No. 221536. The parties referred the matter to mediation, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 21.02.2022.
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.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
SNPC Machines Private Limited v.Pankaj Rana
SNPC Machines Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patents, copyright, and misappropriation of trade secrets related to a brick-making machine. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the Court.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its Indian Patent No. 240893, titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The court issued directions regarding bank guarantees and continuous cash deposits from the defendants to secure the claims during the pendency of the suit. The matter remains pending trial.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Dinesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Tata Sons Private Limited and Dinesh Kumar after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The agreement confirmed Tata's ownership of the well-known 'TATA' mark and required the defendant to cease all use of the mark or any deceptively similar variations. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to assign his related trademark registration and pay a full and final settlement amount of INR 2,00,000/-.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit filed by Sterlite Technologies Limited against HFCL Limited for the infringement of their patent related to an optical fiber cable. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing products.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
Deepak Kukreja v.Anil Kukreja
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Deepak Kukreja against Anil Kukreja, restraining the latter from using the deceptively similar trademark 'RIGALITE' in relation to electrical goods. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off concerning his registered trademarks RIGA and RIGGA. Furthermore, the Court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing materials, and inventory the goods.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The dispute arose from agreements between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME) regarding film rights for 'Sholay' and 'Sholay 3D'. After a Deed of Settlement was executed, the core issue became non-compliance with payment terms by one party. NHC filed a commercial suit seeking declaration of exclusive license and injunction against termination notices issued by SME.
Ani Media Pvt Ltd v.Vinay G David & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Ani Media Pvt Ltd alleging that Defendant No.1 was willfully disobeying a prior ad interim injunction order. The court found prima facie evidence of breach, as the defendant continued using the plaintiff's registered trademarks and domain name on his Facebook account despite the restraint order. Consequently, the court issued a show cause notice to initiate proceedings for disobedience and mandated that the defendant remove all offending content within 48 hours.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Eris Lifesciences Limited filed a revocation petition challenging Patent No. IN 243301, arguing that it should be revoked because the claims were covered by an earlier genus patent (IN 227719). The Delhi High Court noted that another appeal concerning the same patent was already pending before the court. Consequently, the court directed both parties to serve notices upon each other and listed the matter together with the existing appeal for a hearing on April 6, 2022.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN254458 before the Delhi High Court. The contesting respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the patent was granted in Chennai and an earlier revocation petition had already been filed before IPAB, Chennai.
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v.Shashi Distilleries Private Limited
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Shashi Distilleries Private Limited seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of an Aseptic Brick Pack packaging that is deceptively similar to its own distinctive trade dress used for 'Original Choice' whisky. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction to withdraw the defendant's application for approval of this similar packaging.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which dismissed a pre-grant opposition against its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a 'speaking order' and lacked sufficient reasoning. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a reasoned decision.
Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited v.Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited against Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark entry bearing number 4786408 in Class 16. This decision effectively removed the contested mark from the register, favoring the petitioner's claim regarding the intellectual property rights.
Kores (India) Limited v.Doms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited v.Maithri Aquatech Private Limited
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Maithri Aquatech Private Limited and others for alleged patent infringement. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party was located in Delhi. However, the Court found that since the defendant No.1 operated an interactive website accessible globally, and Defendants No.2 & 3 were marketing agents based in Delhi, Delhi courts possessed sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the application for leave to file the suit was allowed.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS v.RAJIV MUKUL AND ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking enforcement of a prior decree. The core issue is the alleged infringement and passing off committed by the judgment debtors who began selling products under the deceptively similar trade name 'BETNEVIN'. Although the original suit covered various trademarks, the petitioners argued that their rights in 'BETNOVATE' and 'BETNESOL' were encompassed within the general scope of the decree. The Court directed notice to the defendants regarding this new alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited v.Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'JUPITER' (Registration No. 1675980). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using similar marks, such as "StayGo Jupiter Multispecialty Hospital," in relation to running hospitals and providing medical services. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement and granted the interim injunction.
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.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors. v.Venkata Siva Suhas Kumar Bommisetty & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors., filed an interim application seeking relief against the Defendants for infringement of their registered 'NATURAL' family marks and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordering them to remove related online advertisements.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
The cases involve Novartis AG against Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Eris Lifesciences Limited regarding commercial disputes. The hearings are scheduled for further directions.
PRECISE BIO PHARMA PVT. LTD. v.ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS & ANR.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a stay against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. This order rejected the pre-grant opposition filed by Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding Indian Patent Application No. 2471/DELNP/2013 under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Walpar Healthcare And Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an Interim Application against Walpar Healthcare & Anr. alleging passing off and trademark infringement concerning their respective marks, DUZELA and DIZELA. The court found a case made out for granting ad-interim relief based on the findings of the previous order.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. challenging the Senior Examiner's refusal to register the trademark 'DISPOSAFE'. While granting procedural exemptions regarding document submission, the court formally initiated the substantive appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that their unique combination mark should not have been rejected as generic or descriptive. The matter is now set for further hearing after notice has been issued to the Respondent.
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.