Astrazenca Ab v. West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.

CS(COMM) 155/2020

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.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 155/2020
Judge(s)
Mukta Gupta

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Astrazenca Ab vs West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent811/93

Mohan KumarvsM/S. Narendra Products

The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Mohan Kumar against M/S. Narendra Products. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the use of the similar mark 'SHANKER' for Pan Masala (Gutka). The court ruled that it possessed jurisdiction, noting that the defendant had applied for registration and advertised the mark in Delhi, thereby establishing a sufficient connection to the territorial limits.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2024

Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps)vsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another

Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.

patentCS(COMM) 482/2025

Signatureglobal (India) LimitedvsAshok Kumar And Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.

patentC.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022

Blackberry LimitedvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.

patentC.S. No.495 of 2006

K. Ramu (Deceased) & Lavanya RamuvsAdyar Ananda Bhavan

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Adyar Ananda Bhavan for infringing two patents (process and product) related to sweets made with fructose/levulose. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because the relevant patents had expired, rendering the main relief infructuous.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call