Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited

OMP No. 85 of 2022 in COMS No. 07 of 2022, OMP No. 89 of 2022 in COMS No. 08 of 2022, OMP No. 93 of 2022 in COMS No. 09 of 2022 & OMP No. 97 of 2022 in COMS No. 10 of 2022

The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, filed applications seeking interim directions against respondents (including MSN Laboratories and others) for infringing their patent rights related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not presented a credible challenge to the patent's validity and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Number
OMP No. 85 of 2022 in COMS No. 07 of 2022, OMP No. 89 of 2022 in COMS No. 08 of 2022, OMP No. 93 of 2022 in COMS No. 09 of 2022 & OMP No. 97 of 2022 in COMS No. 10 of 2022
Judge(s)
Ajay Mohan Goel

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Himachal Pradesh High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG vs MSN Laboratories Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 65/2016

Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub)vsLava International Limited

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.

patentCS(COMM) 230/2023

Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr.vsBollywood Time & Ors.

Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan filed a civil suit alleging that various parties were circulating misleading videos on YouTube claiming she was critically ill or deceased, often using morphed pictures. The plaintiffs argued this violated her right to privacy and infringed upon the family's intellectual property rights, specifically copyright in their images. The court examined the role of social media intermediaries like Google LLC (YouTube) under the IT Rules, 2021, while setting procedural timelines for the parties to proceed with the infringement claim.

patentO.M.P. (COMM) 232/2024

Oracle International CorporationvsCis It Solutions Pvt Ltd

Oracle International Corporation challenged an Arbitral Award that denied it the transfer of the domain name www.exadata.in, despite Oracle holding registered trademarks for 'EXADATA.' The Delhi High Court found that the arbitrator failed to appreciate the evidence and suggested the award was contrary to public policy. While the court did not overturn the award immediately, it initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the respondent, signaling a significant legal challenge to the initial domain dispute resolution.

patentFAO(OS) (COMM) 86/2025

Mr. Ar RahmanvsUstad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar

This appeal addressed a dispute over the copyright ownership of the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti.' The plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, claimed authorship and sought recognition and injunctions against A.R. Rahman for using the composition in his song 'Veera Raja Veera.' The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff could establish prima facie evidence of copyright ownership based on family claims and performance history. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment. The court held that mere evidence of rendering or performing a musical work is insufficient to prove authorship under Section 2(d)(ii) and Section 2(ffa), thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 33/2022

Ischemix LlcvsThe Controller Of Patents

Ischemix LLC appealed a refusal of its patent application, which covered an isomer used to treat ischemia. The refusal was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring demonstration of 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy.' The court acknowledged the strict interpretation required by law but noted that the Patent Office had failed to consider various supporting data provided by the applicant. Consequently, the High Court directed the record back to the Patent Office for re-examination and final adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.

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