Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v. Metrochem Api Private Limited

CS(COMM) 24/2022

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound APIXABAN. The defendant is accused of manufacturing and selling APIXABAN API without authorization.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 24/2022
Judge(s)
Yogesh Khanna

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 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland vs Metrochem Api Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2021

Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki KaishavsController Of Patents And Design

Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617023236) for a solid preparation containing Tofogliflozin in monohydrate crystal form. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) because it was merely a new use/form of a known drug without enhanced efficacy.

patentCS(COMM) 706/2021

Guala Closures SpavsAgi Greenpac Limited

Guala Closures Spa filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent rights against Agi Greenpac Limited, alleging infringement by the latter's 'Voila Closure.' The Plaintiff holds Patent No. 349522 for a tamper-evident closure with a two-level tear-off seal mechanism. The court examined the prima facie case regarding infringement and the necessity of an interim injunction. Ultimately, the Court found that the triple test for granting an injunction was not met, favoring the Defendants' business interests at this preliminary stage.

patentC.M.A.(PT) No.44 of 2024

Titan Company LimitedvsThe Controller of Patents & Designs

Titan Company Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the claims fell under Section 3(l) and were suitable for design registration rather than a patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the appellant's technical submissions.

patentIPDTMA/14-21/2024

Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.)vsGlorious Investment Limited And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.

patentCS(COMM) 395/2023 & I.A. No. 37843/2024

Allied Blenders And Distillers LimitedvsBoutique Spirit Brands Private Limited

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.

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