Vifor International Ltd v. MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd

FAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2023, 160/2023 & 161/2023

Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
FAO(OS)(COMM) 159/2023, 160/2023 & 161/2023
Judge(s)
Yashwant Varma,Dharmesh Sharma

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Vifor International Ltd vs MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 1054/2018

Living Media India LimitedvsLallantop Media And Anr.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Living Media India Limited, finding that Lallantop Media and Anr. infringed upon its trademark rights by registering and using the similar domain name 'THELALLANTOP.NET'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the domain and directed the registrar to facilitate the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established online brand identities in the digital media space.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 33/2025

Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co LtdvsRegistrar Of Trademarks & Anr.

The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.

patentLPA 205/2024 & CM APPL. 14561/2024

Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi NaturalsvsSana Herbals Private Limited

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.

patentCS(COMM) 669/2025

Sunil Niranjan ShahvsVijay Bahadur

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Niranjan Shah against Vijay Bahadur. Crucially, the court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the defendant's suspicious conduct and history of similar infringing activities through related parties. The court also directed the defendant to appear physically on the next date of hearing, signaling continued judicial scrutiny over the matter.

patentW.P.(C)-IPD 43/2025

Provivi, Inc.vsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs

Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.

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