Novartis Ag v. Msn Laboratories Private Limited

CS(COMM) 305/2022

Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories for alleged infringement of its patent (No. 237430) covering Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases, specifically related to the drug NILOTINIB/TASIGNA. The dispute arose from an Office Memorandum indicating that the Defendant was being considered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for manufacturing this patented preparation.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 305/2022
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

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 Novartis Ag vs Msn Laboratories Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.S.No.118 of 2021

M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private LimitedvsM/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders

This case involved a civil suit filed by M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright through the use of the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. However, both parties reached a mutual settlement agreement.

patentCS(COMM) 306/2026

Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.vsBasil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2021

Dolby International AbvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

patentMISC. PETITION No. 5001 of 2022 & MISC. PETITION No. 6127 of 2022

Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.vsCurewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.

patentW.P.(C)-IPD 54/2021

Amit SoodvsUnion Of India And Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Amit Sood, granting cancellation of the mark 'ROSHAN' (No. 1324435) registered by the respondents under Class 42. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the name since the 1960s, establishing extensive goodwill in the photography sector. This judgment underscores the principle that prior use and established reputation outweigh subsequent trademark registration when seeking cancellation.

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