India Patent Cases
2,847 decisions indexed
Page 69 of 95 · 2,847 total
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca sued Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited regarding two patents, IN 147 (genus) and IN 625 (species), covering the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin (DAPA). The core dispute was whether DAPA, which is used to treat type-II diabetes, falls within the scope of the genus patent. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' applications.
Unilever Plc. v.Ranbir Narang
Unilever Plc. filed an Interim Application concerning the counterfeiting of its goods, which bear multiple registered trade marks (like POND'S, HUL) and copyrighted artistic containers. The court granted ad-interim injunctions against both defendants to prevent further infringement and directed a receiver to seize all infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Rahul Goyal
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc (and its subsidiary Plaintiff no.2), filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Rahul Goyal for infringement of their trademarks (LAKME, U-Logo, etc.), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to cosmetic preparations. The court granted the interim relief, appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the Delhi High Court challenging an anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, which sought to restrain them from prosecuting their SEP royalty rate suit in India. The court found a clear case for granting ad interim relief.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's product infringes their patent for a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The defendant claims their product is different and has filed for revocation of the suit patent.
Company v.State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)
The petitioner company filed a writ petition seeking protection for its patent related to the manufacturing process of hazardous waste materials (SPL). The petitioner argued that the SPCB's planned review of criteria could negatively impact its patented process and lead to closure due to insufficient raw material sanction. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the SPCB and CPCB to consider the pending representations and grant a hearing to the petitioner.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Worknest Business Centre Llp & Anr. v.M/S Worknests Through Rajesh Goyal
Worknest Business Centre LLP filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against M/S Worknests, claiming that the defendant's use of 'WORKNESTS' in the co-working space business infringed upon its established mark 'WORKNEST'. While the plaintiff presented evidence of prior domain registration and trademarks, the court found no immediate grounds to grant an interim injunction. The matter was directed to proceed as a full suit for detailed examination.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit against UPL Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringing its India Patent No. 262428, which covers Boscalid anhydrous Form-II. The court considered affidavits from both parties regarding infringement and R&D activities. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of BASF SE, granting a permanent injunction.
Carneige Institute Of Washington v.Fenix Diamonds Llc
The application sought to execute a Letter Rogatory from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, requesting deposition testimony, facility inspection, and document production related to patent infringement litigation concerning CVD diamonds. The court partially granted the request by appointing a Principal District Judge in Surat to record witness evidence.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
FMC Corporation v.Modern Insecticides Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its valid Indian Patent (IN 201307) related to the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the patent, claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and exporting the compound, thereby violating their intellectual property rights. Based on the prima facie case presented by FMC Corporation, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Astrazenca Ab v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Astrazenca filed a suit alleging that West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. was manufacturing the drug Dapagliflozin, which is protected by Astrazenca's patents (IN '147 and IN '625). The defendant entered an undertaking acknowledging the validity of the patents and agreeing not to infringe them.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs sought revival of an earlier interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations comprising 'Ceritinib'. The court noted that the initial order was suspended due to the suit patent being revoked. However, since the IPAB subsequently stayed the revocation order, the court revived the original ad interim relief.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash certain respondent orders and obtain a declaration that patent IN 235625 has lapsed. The court noted the contention regarding delay and latches, which needs to be decided first.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which rejected its Patent Application. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked reasoning, failed to consider foreign patent grants for the same invention, and did not properly analyze the prior art cited against the claimed invention. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.T.V.S.Motor Company Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant was infringing his Patent No.182682, which covered a specific four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the TVS Flame -125cc. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit due to his severe health conditions.
M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited v.Saurabh Singh
M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against defendants, including Saurabh Singh, Godaddy India, Google India, M/s.Godaddy.com LLC, and Google Inc. The suit alleged trademark infringement (under No.1185286) and copyright infringement related to the name 'PURAVANKARA' and its artistic label, primarily concerning deceptive use of domain names and websites. Although the initial claims sought damages and injunctions, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their authorized signatory to withdraw the suit as the principal claim had been redressed.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
The plaintiff, BASF SE, filed a suit claiming infringement of its patent (IN-262428) covering the superior anhydrous-II form of the fungicide BOSCALID. The defendant, UPL Limited, appeared and submitted that no valid patent existed for the specific anhydrous-II form at the time they applied for licenses, asserting their use was limited to R&D.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This case involved multiple Commercial Arbitration Petitions challenging arbitral awards related to a licensing agreement for transgenic Bt. cotton seeds. The petitioner claimed rights to royalty fees and technology transfer, while the respondent defended the award which allowed monetary claims made by them. The Court dismissed all arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality in the impugned award.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioners challenged several arbitral awards related to licensing agreements for Bt. cotton seeds, arguing that the respondent failed to transfer technology and was liable to pay royalties. The Bombay High Court dismissed all commercial arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Union Of India
Astrazeneca challenged an order from the Patent Office that directed immediate publication of its granted patent (IN 235625) due to a clerical error. The petitioner argued that this belated direction, after 11 years, would prejudice them by effectively extending the statutory limitation period for post-grant opposition beyond one year as stipulated in Section 25(2).
UPL Limited v.Modern Insecticides Limited
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its statutory rights by exporting and intending to manufacture a product covered by patent IN 244551. The composition in question is a synergistic herbicide comprising Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a Sub-Licence Agreement related to the use of transgenic cotton seeds with Bt. traits. The petitioner claims that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has charged excessive trait values. The petitioner and respondent entered into a Special License Agreement for the sale of Bt. cotton seeds. The respondent alleged patent infringement and sought recovery of trait fees, while the petitioner challenged the validity of the SLA under competition law. The petitioner entered into a Sub-Licence Agreement with the respondent for the use of technology and payment of trait fees. Disputes arose regarding the payment of these fees, leading to arbitration proceedings. The respondent claimed unpaid trait fees from the petitioner under a 2015 service level agreement. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing the monetary claims.
Fmc Corporation & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited of their Indian Patents IN 201307 and IN 213332, covering the molecule Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The defendant challenged the plaint through various applications. This order addressed these interim applications.
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.