India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 114 of 164 · 4,909 total
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing Indian Patent Nos. 247381, which covers the subject matter related to Apixaban. The court granted the ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in or advertising the infringing generic products 'Apixaz' and 'Apiquis', and ordered the permanent delisting of such advertisements.
Mita Ashok Kapoor Through Poa Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed civil suits alleging that the defendant was infringing their registered design for an air-cooler grill. The plaintiff holds registrations (No. 324986-017 and No. 233559) covering the unique shape and configuration of the grill. The court examined the claims, noting a striking similarity between the designs and finding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for protection.
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant Indian Patent Application Number No. 156/DELNP/2014. The court issued several interim orders regarding procedural matters such as condonation of delay, exemption from filing documents, and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Hetero Labs Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its salts/solvates. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting defendants to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
AMPM Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Mumbai Bench)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by AMPM Designs, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its registered trade mark 'AMPM Designs' from the register. The court found that the IPAB erred in law and fact, specifically by failing to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding rectification applications. Crucially, the High Court determined that the petitioner's business (interior design services) was materially distinct from the respondent's primary business (fashion apparels), thus negating any likelihood of consumer confusion.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited v.Rallis India Ltdl.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited challenged an Arbitral Award dated 30.3.2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute centered on a contract for developing transgenic cotton lines ('Suraksha') and the failure to deliver specific genes (Cry-IC standalone). Nuziveedu Seeds sought to set aside parts of the award regarding damages and deliverables.
Galpha Laboratories Limited v.Shivansh Shrivastava
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, filed an opposition against the Defendant's application for the trade mark BFOLIN. The court examined the similarity between the established mark B-COLEN and the proposed mark BFOLIN. Satisfied that there is a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Arumugam Rajendra Babu v.Ashok Leyland Limited
Arumugam Rajendra Babu appealed an order dated September 1, 2021, passed in a commercial suit. The appellant sought a direction from the trial court to have the Controller of Patents provide evidence regarding his products and patent distinctions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors
The plaintiffs, holding patent IN 218291 for Palbociclib, filed an application seeking interim relief against the defendants who were allegedly manufacturing, marketing, and selling infringing products online. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and passed several ad interim injunctions restraining the parties from further dealing in the patented product.
M/s RSPL Health Private Limited v.Gian Soap Factory
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gian Soap Factory for infringing its registered trademark 'XPERT' and engaging in passing off. The defendant adopted the deceptively similar mark 'GIAN'S 729 EXPERT' for manufacturing and marketing cleaning materials like soaps and detergents. The court found that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's proprietary rights, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Harman Finochem Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was violating and infringing their registered patent (IN 209816) related to Sitagliptin. Despite previous assurances, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the defendant continued to advertise and export infringing products. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from further infringement.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed an application seeking an ex parte injunction against Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited, alleging that the latter was unlawfully imitating and pirating its distinctive footwear designs. The plaintiff highlighted that two specific slipper designs were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's designs. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing designs.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic Apixaban product that infringes Indian Patent No. 247381. The court, relying on previous orders regarding the same patent, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing generic product.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, a Spanish company operating in India, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse' (IN 329620) and violated its copyrights. The infringement was alleged based on the defendants' tender bid submitted to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP v.Mind Blowing Naturals LLP
The Plaintiffs, proprietors of the mark NATURAL for ice creams since 1983/84, filed an interim application alleging that Defendants were using a substantially similar mark (MIND BLOWING NATURALS) and infringing their copyrighted logo. The Court found prima facie evidence of confusion and deception.
Pfizer Inc v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed several orders regarding various interlocutory applications in the suit filed by Pfizer Inc against Natco Pharma Limited. Specifically, the court granted an undertaking to the defendant that they would provide four weeks prior notice before launching the drug alleged to infringe the patent.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424 related to the drug Alectinib. The court granted the injunction, restraining commercial activities, but allowed the defendant to use the product for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act.
PFIZER INC v.NATCO PHARMA LIMITED
The plaintiffs (Pfizer Inc) informed the court that the present matter relates to Patent No. 218291 and is connected to several other pending cases involving the same patent. The court directed that the present matter be listed along with these related matters before the Judge In-charge on September 30, 2021.
Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
In this matter concerning a petition before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed several procedural applications. While certain motions were disposed of, the bench issued a critical direction requiring the petitioner to implead the actual registered proprietors of the trademark in question. This step is necessary because a favorable ruling could lead to the cancellation of their registered mark, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with the core dispute.
L.G.Varadarajulu v.M/S.Raj Ganesh Enterprises
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing Patent No. 179607, Design Nos. 163445 and 163446, and copyright in their table top wet grinders. However, the first plaintiff passed away, and the remaining plaintiffs sought to withdraw the suit.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and associated defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' mark 'Blofin-D3 Max' and packaging were identical to the Plaintiff's registered marks ('Bio-D3', 'Bio-D3 Max') used for similar pharmaceutical preparations. Although Defendant No. 1 changed its mark, the injunction was upheld against all parties involved in the collaboration, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Alkem Laboratories Limited against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd following an amicable settlement reached through court mediation. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Alkem’s registered trademark ‘ALDIGESIC’ in medicinal preparations. Under the terms of the settlement, the Defendants acknowledged Alkem's rights and agreed to cease using the infringing mark and similar trade dress, further agreeing to withdraw their own pending trademark application for 'ALGESIC'.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Hetero Labs Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent for Baricitinib by manufacturing and selling it without a license. The case involves a request for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing this activity.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. v.Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe & Ors.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe in a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court recognized Warner Bros' status as a global leader and prior proprietor of the well-known 'Hogwarts' trademarks. Crucially, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the infringing mark 'The Hogwarts Kafe' at their restaurant premises and directed to remove all related advertisements and listings online.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Pfizer Inc v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its Indian Patent No. 218291 related to Palbociclib, marketed under the brand name 'Palbace'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement but noted the timeline of alleged infringement was unclear.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center & Ors.
Sotefin Sa filed a suit for patent infringement against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others, alleging that the 'smart dollies' installed by Defendant No. 4 infringed Plaintiff's Patent No. 4214088. Both parties agreed to the appointment of a Scientific Advisor from IIT Delhi to conduct an expert examination and report on whether the Defendants' product falls within the scope of the patent claims.
Wako India Kickboxing Federation v.Wako India Kickboxing Federation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from certain procedural requirements, while simultaneously registering the main plaint as a formal civil suit. The suit was filed under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal and rectification of specific trademarks registered in the defendant's name. The court issued detailed directions for serving summons and ensuring timely filing of written statements and rejoinders by both parties.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 294424 concerning Alectinib. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions and noted that while the defendant could use the drug for research under Section 107A, any commercial launch would require prior permission from the court.
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.