India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 122 of 164 · 4,909 total
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
The suit was originally filed by Shogun Organics Ltd seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its process patent (IN236630) related to D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The current application sought permission to sell existing manufactured stock prior to the final judgment. The court allowed the sale but directed the defendants to pay 5% of the sales value and deposit costs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Angels Pharma India Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Angels Pharma India Private Limited was attempting to manufacture and infringe its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted interim relief.
Sun Mobility Private Limited v.Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu
The appeal challenged an order that appointed a Scientific Advisor to adjudicate a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff claimed his patents covered specific EV battery charging systems, while defendants were accused of infringing with 'quick interchange station' technology. The High Court confirmed the single judge's order appointing the Scientific Advisor and dismissed the appeal.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
This appeal challenges a single judge's decision that appellants (Monsanto) were governed by both the Competition Act, 2002, and the Patents Act, 1970. The core dispute revolves around whether competition law proceedings are applicable when patented seeds are involved. The court allowed several applications and issued an interim restraint on the CCI from finalizing its report pending further hearing.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Anwar Ali
Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary filed a suit against Mr. Anwar Ali for infringing their registered trademarks ("adidas", "three bars", etc.) and copyrights on shoes and accessories. The court found that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, and selling inferior quality goods using deceptively similar marks, causing damage to Adidas' reputation.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Mr. Anwar Ali
The plaintiff, Nike Innovate C.V., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing identical or deceptively similar 'Nike' trademarks and logos in Delhi. The court found that the defendant was causing confusion and deception among the public by using falsified marks on inferior quality goods.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh filed a suit against Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 211300, which covers Rivaroxaban. The defendant admitted to making commercial use before expiry due to a miscommunication regarding the patent's expiration date. Both parties agreed that the suit could be decreed in terms of permanent injunction, leading to the final disposal of the case.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited challenged several orders issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning allegations of unfair trade practices related to the 'trait fee' charged for using Bt. Cotton technology. The core dispute revolved around the licensing terms and recurring fees imposed by MMBL, a subsidiary in India. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the CCI's administrative orders, provided they were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp And Anr v.Oceanic Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin and its salts. The plaintiff submitted evidence showing the defendant's online presence advertising and selling infringing Sitagliptin Phosphate API in India. Based on this prima-facie case, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in the infringing product.
Pfizer Inc v.Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging infringement of two Indian Patents, IN 209251 (Sunitinib) and IN 268331 (Tigecycline composition). The defendants agreed to the permanent injunction and offered compensation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Everest Organics Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Organics Limited for infringing its registered patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was developing and preparing to commercialize an infringing product. Based on the prima facie case presented, the Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Pfizer Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 241773 and 218212, which cover Tofacitinib (XELJANZ(R)). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were illegally manufacturing and selling generic versions under the brand 'TOFAXEN'.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by Kanishk Sinha against the Union of India. The court noted that the petitioner's patent application had been accepted online, substantially addressing his grievance.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, holding patents and licenses for Sitagliptin (under trade names ISTAVEL and ISTAMET), filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the drug under the brand name TwoTrack, thereby infringing their patent. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction.
Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & Next Gen Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v.Actial Farmaceutica Srl. (Formerly known as CD Investment Srl.) & Ors.
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership over the 'De Simone Formulation' through patent rights and subsequent Know-How agreements, filed suit against CD Group entities. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff retained proprietary rights (trade secrets) after the initial patent expired in 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without a valid patent right in India, the plaintiffs lacked a personal cause of action to restrain the defendants from working or selling the formulation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, was selling and advertising various compositions of Sitagliptin without taking any license. The plaintiff holds a valid patent for Sitagliptin.
Bharat Bhogilal Patel v.Nokia Corporations & Ors
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal against a judgment decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The original suit declared that the processes and machinery used by the plaintiff did not infringe the appellant's patents (189027 and 188787) and granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant from threatening infringement proceedings. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the failure of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.
Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Office of the Trade Marks Registry
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd against various IP authorities, including The Controller General of Patents and Designs. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the case, which was subsequently granted by the court. This dismissal allows the petitioner to pursue their rights through other appropriate legal channels.
M/s Purva Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd. v.Sri. K. Bhoopathi
The plaintiff, M/s Purva Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Sri. K. Bhoopathi, alleging that the defendant was interfering with its lawful business of manufacturing and selling steel tubes (175mm and 180mm OD). The dispute centered on the defendant's claim of exclusive copyright over the drawings/technology used for these specific steel tubes.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the validity of a patent by questioning the vires of Section 64 of the Patents Act. The Union of India admitted the stand taken by the petitioner in its affidavit-in-opposition, leading the Calcutta High Court to dispose of the writ petition.
Coffee Board, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India v.Trade Marks Registry
The Coffee Board filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious consideration and registration of specific trademark applications. The Trade Marks Registry responded by confirming that the applications had already been accepted, advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, and would proceed to registration subject to standard legal provisions. Given this confirmation from the Respondent, the High Court found no further order necessary and dismissed the writ petition.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.
The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Union Of India & Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the exclusive use of the geographical name 'GOA' in relation to gin. Following a partial rectification by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which limited exclusivity only to the label mark, Radico Khaitan Limited challenged this decision. The court issued an interim order staying the IPAB's judgment, clarifying that the partial rectification does not grant public domain status to the word 'GOA,' thereby protecting the petitioner's statutory rights against third-party misuse.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a patent infringement suit concerning several Ericsson patents related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G technology. The court framed issues regarding whether the patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), whether there is infringement by Gionee, and whether the plaintiff complied with FRAND commitments.
Lupin Ltd. v.Union Of India And Ors.
Lupin Ltd. challenged the NPPA's stance that it should have sought prior permission before launching an FDC drug (Empagliflozin and Metformin Hydrochloride), relying on a product patent exemption under Para 32(i) of DPCO, 2013. The court recognized the legal ambiguity regarding whether prior approval or mere intimation is required to avail this exemption.
Cde Asia Limited v.Jaideep Shekhar & Anr.
Cde Asia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Jaideep Shekhar and others for infringing its patent (No. 307249) and registered design (No. 262629) related to material classification systems used in mining and sand aggregate production. The defendant challenged the plaint, arguing that the suit was premature as it was filed before the one-year period required for post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act had lapsed. Additionally, the defense contested the court's territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the application challenging the plaint, allowing the infringement suit to proceed.
Roche Products (India) Private Limited v.Cadila Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs, including Roche Products and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, challenged the validity of drug approvals granted by the DCGI and DoB to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. for its biosimilar product 'Trastuzumab'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given the regulatory framework, specifically concerning appeal provisions under the Drugs Rules.
M/s.ADD PRINT [INDIA] ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v.M/S.LAMBA MARKETING SYSTEMS AND M/S.LAMBA STAMPS AND SIGNS
This civil suit was filed alleging infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('SUN STAMPER') and designs (Box type pre inked rubber Stamp, Reg. No. 207586) by the defendants using 'STAMP ONE'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages against the alleged infringers. However, despite multiple opportunities to depose its witness over a period of nearly twelve years, the plaintiff failed to appear in 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.