Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited

145416797

The dispute concerning the infringement of Patent IN 247381 related to Apixaban was settled through mediation. The settlement agreement required the defendant to confirm it did not distribute 'Apixaban' in India during the patent term and agreed not to challenge its validity.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
145416797
Judge(s)
C. Hari Shankar

Detailed Summary

of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent74275559

Asian Paints Ltd.vsCharulbhai Patel Prop. Business under name of Pacific Paints Industries.

The applicant (Asian Paints Ltd.) filed an interim application seeking further ad-interim relief in a commercial IP suit against the defendants. The court noted that previous ad-interim relief had been granted, and since the defendant was served, the matter was placed on the board for 'further ad-interim relief' on a subsequent date.

patent146023333

Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.vsController General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks

Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201817048074) by the Controller General, which was based on non-patentability under Section 3(d). The appeal challenged the decision to reject the application despite submissions regarding improved therapeutic efficacy and stability data.

patent4089061

Crystal Crop Protection LtdvsDeputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.

Crystal Crop Protection Ltd filed an application under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims and remand Patent Application No. 1982/DEL/2013 back to the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court issued notice and directed the filing of a reply within four weeks.

patent32438389

Honasa Consumer LtdvsVisage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd

Honasa Consumer Ltd filed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered by Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The dispute arose after Honasa received a cease and desist notice from Visage claiming rights over the mark, which overlaps with Honasa's use of 'DETAN' in conjunction with its brand 'AQUALOGICA'. The Delhi High Court allowed procedural applications regarding document filing and issued notice to the Respondent for the stay application, setting future dates for hearing.

patent151070650

Vertex Pharmaceuticals IncorporatedvsDeputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.

The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.

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