Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Novartis AgvsWindlas Biotech Pvt Ltd

Novartis initiated multiple suits against various defendants, including Windlas Biotech and Eris Lifesciences, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN229051, which covers a combination drug (Valsartan + Sacubitril) used to treat cardiovascular disease. The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions and access to distribution details. While the court maintained an interim injunction against manufacturing and selling the patented composition, it also directed Eris Lifesciences Limited to deposit Rs. 5 crores due to the marketing of stock post-infringement.

Bayer CorporationvsUnion Of India & Ors.

This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision. The court examined whether patented products could be exported for clinical trials and regulatory submissions outside India without constituting patent infringement. The bench affirmed that sale or use under Section 107A is legal both domestically and abroad, provided the end purpose is reasonably related to research and development for regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that disputes regarding the legitimate scope of this exemption should be adjudicated in civil suits rather than public law proceedings like writ petitions.

Art Screw Co., Ltd.vsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 6541/DELNP/ 2011) by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which cited lack of inventive step. The court directed the petitioner to place international granted patents on record and ordered further submissions from both parties.

Fmc CorporationvsNatco 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.

M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private LimitedvsBhcosmetics Llc

The Delhi High Court permitted M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Bhcosmetics Llc. The amendment corrected an inadvertent typographical error, clarifying that the 'BH' logo/label was not yet a registered trademark but rather had a pending application and long-standing user rights since 1986. The court allowed this correction, recognizing it would not alter the core relief sought (permanent injunction for passing off and infringement), and subsequently modified an earlier court order to reflect the accurate status of the mark.