Executive Summary
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Genentech Inc And Others vs Drugs Controller General Of India And Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Raaj Unocal Lubricants LimitedvsApple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
Bharat VastralayavsKarishma Silks & Sarees
The Madras High Court disposed of a Trade Marks Appeal between Bharat Vastralaya and Karishma Silks & Sarees based on a settlement reached between the parties. The consent terms mandate that while the Respondent can continue using 'KARISHMA' for one specific outlet in Bangalore, they must withdraw their existing trademark registration (No. 572267) in Class 24. This resolution provides a clear path forward for both parties to manage their respective rights and prevent further litigation.
Professor Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural UniversityvsMonsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar, representing Telangana State Agricultural University, filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology LLC. The petition aimed to challenge the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, despite being served notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the Madras High Court on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Dr Reddys Laboratories LimitedvsDr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court found that Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited was in prima facie contempt of a previous court order by expanding its operations under the 'DR. REDDY'S' mark, even if those new centers were directly owned rather than franchised. The Court ruled that the original undertaking to maintain status quo was intended to prevent any proliferation of business under the contested mark, regardless of ownership structure. Consequently, the Defendant was served with a show cause notice regarding contempt.
Ht Media Limited & Anr.vsHindustan Live News & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan Live News, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court restrained the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'HINDUSTAN LIVE NEWS' and directed Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook/Instagram) and Google LLC (YouTube) to immediately remove infringing content. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect established brand goodwill in the digital media space.
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.
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.