Astrazeneca Ab v. Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited

CS(COMM) 688/2024

Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals for infringing its patent IN 297581, which covers the compound Osimertinib. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 688/2024
Decision Date
14 August 2024

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 Astrazeneca Ab vs Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 145/2023 & I.As. 4912/2023, 4913/2023, 4914/2023, 4915/2023, 4916/2023

Rspl Health Private LimitedvsReckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.

This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.

patentW. P. no. 593 of 1952; W. P. No. 672 and W. P. No. 673 of 1952; W. P. 149 of 1953

J. Nageswara RaovsThe State Of Madras

The petitioner challenged the classification of his patented medicine, 'Vitogen', as 'medicated wine' and the associated duties levied under the Madras Prohibition Act. The court examined the scope of the Act and various notifications regarding medicinal preparations. While upholding the liability of 'Vitogen' to pay a specific duty (Rs. 35 per proof gallon) under Notification No. 473, the court declared certain provisions of the Act, including Section 23(2) and Notification No. 941, as ultra vires and unenforceable.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 686/2022

Burger King Company LlcvsRanjan Gupta & Ors.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong standing of Burger King Company LLC, declaring its trademark 'BURGER KING' to be well-known in India. The court relied on extensive global usage, massive promotional investment, and local market presence (over 400 outlets) to establish secondary meaning. This ruling significantly strengthens the brand's protection against unauthorized use by defendants operating under similar names like 'Burger King Family Restaurant'.

patentCS(COMM) 340/2022, I.A. 5822/2024

Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr.vsHarsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 667/2022

M/S. P.M. Diesels P. Ltd.vsM/S. Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.

The Delhi High Court delivered a multi-faceted judgment addressing several IP disputes involving the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark. In one suit, the court decreed P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.'s claim against Thukral Mechanical Works, while simultaneously ordering the cancellation of an older registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works in Class 7. Furthermore, the High Court set aside previous rejection orders for P.M. Diesels' trademark applications, allowing them to proceed toward registration.

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