Executive Summary
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Master Arnesh Shaw vs Union Of India & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
M/s.Advaith Bio RemediesvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks
M/s. Advaith Bio Remedies approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention regarding the undue delay in processing their trademark application for 'BIO CARE' (Application No. 3040849). The petitioner, which manufactures Ayurvedic medicines, argued that the prolonged wait was negatively impacting their business operations. The court intervened by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to prioritize and dispose of the pending application as expeditiously as possible.
Raj Kumar SharmavsSandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Nocil LtdvsFinorchem Ltd And Anr
The defendants filed an application seeking revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The dispute involves allegations of patent infringement and breach of confidentiality concerning the manufacturing process of 4-ADPA. The court ruled that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded urgency based on a holistic reading of the plaint.
Enterabio Ltd.vsThe Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Jupeng Bio (Hk) LimitedvsThe Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Jupeng Bio appealed an order rejecting its patent application for 'Control of Conductivity in Anaerobic Fermentation'. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the prior art cited did not explicitly disclose all claimed elements (conductivity and SCU relationship), and that the reasons for rejection under Section 3(d) were unreasoned. The High Court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding both novelty and Section 3(d) non-patentability.
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.