Novartis Ag & Ors. v. Noviets Pharma & Ors.

CS(COMM) 218/2024, I.A. 5655/2024, I.A. 5656/2024 & I.A. 5657/2024

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement dispute between Novartis Ag & Ors. and Noviets Pharma & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-suit mediation. Crucially, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial, while also addressing the preliminary injunction application seeking restraint against trademark infringement.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 218/2024, I.A. 5655/2024, I.A. 5656/2024 & I.A. 5657/2024
Decision Date
12 March 2024

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 & Ors. vs Noviets Pharma & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 60/2024

Dong Yang Pc, IncvsController Of Patents And Designs

Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

patentO.S.A.No.314 of 2012

M/s.Flsmidth Pvt.Ltd.vsM/s.Secan Invescast (India) Pvt.Ltd.

M/s. Flsmidth Pvt.Ltd. filed an appeal seeking to enforce a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) against M/s. Secan Invescast (India) Pvt.Ltd., alleging that the respondent violated trade secrets by approaching Flsmidth's customers and using proprietary technical knowhow. The appellant claimed significant loss of sales due to this breach. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction after the agreement expired and noting that damages remained an available remedy.

patentCS(COMM) 822/2022

Ajinomoto Co IncvsDattatrey Studios & Anr.

Ajinomoto Co Inc successfully secured an interim injunction against Dattatrey Studios in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'AJI-NO-MOTO,' argued that the upcoming movie title infringed its rights and was disparaging, linking the brand to negative health claims. The court granted the relief, preventing the release of any film bearing the disputed name until further hearing.

patentCS(COMM) 761/2016

Rajkumar SabuvsKaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an application by the Plaintiff, Rajkumar Sabu, allowing for the appointment of Local Commissioners. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'SACHAMOTI' by the Defendants, who continued to sell products bearing the registration symbol (®) despite prior court orders prohibiting such usage. The commissioners were authorized to inspect premises, seize infringing goods and packaging, and take related documentation.

patentTransfer Appl. No.1 of 2021

Uyir Agriculture Private LimitedvsUeir Organic Foods Private Limited

Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.

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