Short Summary
Vifor International Ltd., a global pharmaceutical company, filed suit against Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants intended to launch a generic version, 'Ferocose FCM', which would infringe upon their patent (No. 221536). After considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
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 Vifor International Ltd. vs Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Industeel FrancevsThe Assistant Controller of Patents, Design, Trade Mark And Geographical Indications Patent Office
Industeel France appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 119/CHENP/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller repeatedly changed objections and prior arts, causing procedural inconvenience. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Trident LimitedvsController Of Patents
Trident Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing'. The Appellant argued that the refusal, based on lack of inventive step, was flawed because the cited prior art did not disclose the critical feature: uniformly distributed pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn. The Delhi High Court found infirmities in the Impugned Order, particularly regarding the interpretation of novelty and obviousness against the specific claims. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
Thijs, Roeland Michel MathieuvsAssistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
Vifor (International) LtdvsJ.B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed suits seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the drug FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions launched by the defendants under names 'JBCARB' and 'CipFCM'.
Satish Kumar PanjwanivsNitin Garg
The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants for using trademarks ('Maa Shakti' and 'Nari Shakti') that were allegedly identical or deceptively similar to their registered copyright/trademark, 'Ruchi Shakti', used for edible oil. The court found that the packaging of the defendant no. 2 was almost identical to the plaintiff's, satisfying the test of likelihood of confusion.
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.