Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Eris Lifesciences Limited

COMS No. 09 of 2023 a/w COMS No. 02 of 2024

The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 by the defendant's manufacturing and sale of generic versions of Empagliflozin and related formulations, including products sold under the trade mark 'Linares-E'.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Number
COMS No. 09 of 2023 a/w COMS No. 02 of 2024
Judge(s)
Ajay Mohan Goel

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Himachal Pradesh High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH vs Eris Lifesciences Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.S.No.781 of 2010

Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd.vsM/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt.

The Madras High Court dismissed the trade mark infringement suit filed by Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. against M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. The court held that since the plaintiff had not obtained a registered trademark, but only pending applications, the claim for infringement was premature and lacked cause of action. Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued that neither party was the registered proprietor of their respective marks, leading to the suit's dismissal.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2025

Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. LtdvsRegistrar Of Trademarks And Anr

The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal case, Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr. The court allowed the appellant to withdraw a previously filed review petition. Crucially, the court also condoned a delay of 62 days in filing the main appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2025). Following these procedural orders, the case was listed for final hearing on May 27, 2025.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 170/2024 with I.A. 44330/2024

Tecniqua India Private LimitedvsAbdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.

patentW.P.(C)-IPD 4/2024

M/S Arm LimitedvsUnion Of India & Anr.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Arm Limited, setting aside a previous refusal order that blocked the registration of their trademark 'AMBA'. The court accepted the reasoning from the dissolved IPAB and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 2) to proceed with the advertisement and registration process within four weeks. Furthermore, the Court highlighted systemic issues regarding the retention and authentication of records from defunct tribunals, mandating a status report on this matter.

patentCS(COMM) 616/2024

Nirmal Seeds Private LimitedvsM/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.

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