India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 66 of 95 · 2,847 total
Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Indo-Swiss Chemicals Ltd & Anr.
The defendants filed an application seeking permission from the court to sell their existing stock of a fungicidal composition, which was previously restrained by an ex-parte injunction. The plaintiff strongly opposed this request, arguing that the defendants had continued manufacturing and selling the infringing product despite being aware of the patent rights and prior objections. The court dismissed the application.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Q-Chem Sealers Pvt Ltd
Pidilite Industries Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against infringement and passing off concerning its various marks, labels, and the unique design of its DR FIXIT storage containers. The court addressed an interim application regarding service of notice and combined the causes of action.
Liberty Oil Mills Limited v.N. M. Oil Enterprises
The petitioner, Liberty Oil Mills Limited, filed an interim application regarding a Commercial IP Suit. The court noted that the initial service of notice was insufficient as it did not specify a particular date for the ad-interim hearing. Consequently, the Court issued an order setting a specific date and requiring the plaintiff to provide detailed notice.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Symed Labs Limited
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 227963 by Symed Labs Limited regarding Vortioxetine/Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties amicably resolved the matter, leading to a decree in terms of the settlement agreement.
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited v.M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited, alleging wrongful cancellation of an exclusive trademark license agreement. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the termination notices issued by the defendant. However, the court ultimately ruled that since the controversy primarily arose from contractual terms rather than statutory infringement, the matter was subject to arbitration as per the existing clause in the agreements.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Amoli Organics Private Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Amoli Organics Private Limited for allegedly making, selling, or dealing in products that infringe its Indian Patent No 209816. The dispute centered on the Sitagliptin API and its salts.
El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A. v.Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A., a popular restaurant chain, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were using the 'ALBAIK' trademarks and logos to fraudulently offer unauthorized franchises across India. Recognizing both the trademark rights and the artistic nature of the logos, the judge restrained the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or offering fake franchise opportunities until the final hearing.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed for an ex-parte injunction against the defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN. They seek an injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing products.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging the procedural approach of the Patent Controller, arguing that its application for cross-examination of expert witnesses had not been decided. The court observed the long pendency and directed the Controller to first dispose of Natco's cross-examination application before proceeding with the merits of Novartis' patent application.
UPL Limited v.Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd was manufacturing and intending to launch a product comprising Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP, infringing UPL's registered patents (IN 194211 and IN 211250). The court decreed the suit in favor of UPL Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant for the validity period of the patents.
SAP SE v.SAP HANA SERVER ACCESS HYDERABAD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of SAP SE against the defendants. The court found merit in SAP's claims regarding its proprietary software and trademarks ('SAP', 'SAP HANA'). Consequently, the court directed the immediate de-activation of multiple infringing websites and social media accounts, as well as freezing a specific bank account linked to the alleged pirated activities.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed suits alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the product Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), protected under Indian Patents IN 307 and IN 332. The core dispute revolved around whether these specific patents remained valid, especially since CTPR was covered by an expired genus patent (IN 978). While FMC argued for a permanent injunction against the launch of CTPR, Natco contended that the validity of the suit patents was questionable due to the prior coverage by IN 978. The court disposed of the interim applications but scheduled further hearings to conclude the complex arguments on the merits.
Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v.Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary & Anr.
This petition addressed the critical issue of supply and availability of the drug Tocilizumab 400 MG (Actemra) for COVID-19 patients in Delhi. The court examined submissions from Roche India, which indicated that global demand far exceeded current manufacturing capabilities. While Roche mentioned partnerships with other entities to meet demand, they provided no clear assurance regarding further supply to India. Consequently, the court issued detailed directions to both Roche and the Union of India to provide comprehensive affidavits on supply chain status, patent details, and potential alternatives.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Vishal Products
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Vishal Products alleging infringement of copyright and passing off concerning the distinctive artistic label and trade dress of its 'WHEEL' detergent. The parties reached a consent order before the Bombay High Court, settling the dispute without pressing for damages or costs. Under the settlement, Vishal Products acknowledged HUL's proprietary rights, agreed to cease using the similar packaging, and committed to destroying all existing infringing stock.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Xiaomi Corporation
Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an application seeking an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation and others, restraining them from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used in cellular handsets. The court allowed the application, making the ad interim injunction absolute.
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. v.Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking injunction against Tex Tech Industries for alleged infringement of its registered trademark and Patent No. IN 324406. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party had a principal place of business in Delhi and that the transaction was merely a one-time trap purchase. However, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, noting that since the goods were delivered and the contract completed in Delhi, the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Daniel
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for infringing his registered patent (No. 198079) related to food grade laminated paper and for passing off their products as the plaintiff's. The dispute was subsequently resolved between the parties.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed an Interim Application against MHS Pharmaceuticals. The court noted that the dispute was complex and did not meet the criteria for an immediate ad-interim order, requiring a final hearing after both parties submitted additional evidence.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding one of the suit patents. Another related suit is pending before a different bench.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Greypixy Udyog
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd against Greypixy Udyog was settled on April 21, 2021. The parties agreed to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, leading to the disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Greypixy Udyog
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit between Hindustan Unilever Limited and Greypixy Udyog. The parties reached a settlement, with the Defendants agreeing to submit to the decree in terms of the plaint's prayer clauses.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Greypixy Udyog
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 3761 of 2021 after both parties reached a settlement. The Defendants agreed to submit to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, and the Plaintiffs waived their claim for damages.
Unilever Plc v.Hemakesh Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd
The parties, Unilever Plc and Hemakesh Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd, settled their dispute in this Commercial IP Suit. The defendant submitted to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, leading the plaintiff to drop its claim for damages.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr.
This order addressed a review petition filed by Defendant No. 2 (Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.) challenging the denial of framing issues regarding its application for patent revocation. The court noted that the pending revocation proceedings before IPAB were effectively being handled by the High Court's jurisdiction post-IPAB abolition. To resolve this, the court permitted the defendant to withdraw the IPAB revocation petition and file a counterclaim in the suit.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd
The parties, Monsanto Technology Llc and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, filed joint applications to withdraw the suit and counter claim. They stated that they had amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2021.
M/s Bharat Salt Company v.M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd
M/s Bharat Salt Company filed a suit against M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd seeking injunction and enforcement of its rights under the Patent Act, 1970. The defendant challenged the plaint by arguing that the plaintiff firm was unregistered, making the suit non-maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, the High Court dismissed this plea, noting that the firm was subsequently found to be registered and citing Supreme Court precedents which held that the bar under Section 69(2) does not apply to IP infringement suits.
Pfizer Products Inc v.Unichem Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patents. The parties reached a settlement and withdrew the suit and counter-claim.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Controller's order rejecting its pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, which led to the grant of a patent in favor of the respondent. The court addressed arguments regarding whether a writ petition is an efficacious remedy against such rejection.
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.