Biotech — India Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 108 total
Alternative Gene Expression S L v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application, which held that the method of producing recombinant proteins by destruction of pupa was non-patentable under Section 3(b). The High Court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking reasoned justification despite detailed submissions from the appellant.
Green Cross Holdings Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Green Cross Holdings Corporation appealed the order dated 02.02.2023 by the Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application for a method of preparing Plasma-derived Hepatitis B Human Immunoglobulin Agent. The appellant argued that all objections were addressed, but the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court found that the respondent failed to discuss the prior arts or provide justifiable reasons for rejecting the inventive step.
LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE v.THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for March 2023.
M/S. Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks, Govt. Of India
Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious disposal of its long-pending trademark registration application for 'DELPAR.' The Rajasthan High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application no. 2192781 as quickly as possible, specifically within three months from receiving the court order. This ruling provides a crucial timeline for the petitioner's intellectual property rights.
Osaka University v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Osaka University appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 3495/DELNP/2012) for 'Bridged Artificial Nucleoside and Nucleotide'. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft appealed an order by The Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 9149/DELNP/2014). The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibodies claimed were naturally occurring and thus non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Act. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including condonation of delay, and issued notice for further arguments.
The Regents of the University of California v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California filed an appeal challenging the rejection of their patent application, No.10336/DELNP/2013, titled "Blockade Of Inflammatory Proteases With Theta - Defensins." The initial rejections were based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. After subsequent amendments, the application was rejected again under S. 59 r/w S.15. This order sets out procedural directions for the parties to file replies and written submissions before the next hearing.
USV Private Limited v.Akme Biotec
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Akme Biotec. The court found that USV had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, noting that the defendant was attempting to capitalize on the goodwill associated with USV's registered marks (VI-SYNERAL/VISYNERAL). Consequently, the defendant and its associates were restrained from using any deceptively similar trademarks until further orders.
USV Private Limited v.Martin And Brown Bio Sciences
In this Delhi High Court order, USV Private Limited sought relief against Martin And Brown Bio Sciences regarding alleged trademark infringement. While the court allowed both parties to submit further documentation and cure deficiencies, it also issued a temporary restraint on the defendant from using the disputed or similar trademarks. The proceedings were set for further action, including a potential joint application to dispose of the suit.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
This appeal challenges a single judge's decision that appellants (Monsanto) were governed by both the Competition Act, 2002, and the Patents Act, 1970. The core dispute revolves around whether competition law proceedings are applicable when patented seeds are involved. The court allowed several applications and issued an interim restraint on the CCI from finalizing its report pending further hearing.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by Kanishk Sinha against the Union of India. The court noted that the petitioner's patent application had been accepted online, substantially addressing his grievance.
Roche Products (India) Private Limited v.Cadila Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs, including Roche Products and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, challenged the validity of drug approvals granted by the DCGI and DoB to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. for its biosimilar product 'Trastuzumab'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given the regulatory framework, specifically concerning appeal provisions under the Drugs Rules.
S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against TCS for infringing his copyright and patent related to 'FLYGUARD' (e-Passport/Smartcard). Despite arguments regarding jurisdiction, the court dismissed the suit due to the continuous non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel reporting 'No Instructions'.
Versalis Spa v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
Versalis Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN7854/CHENP/2011) by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute was whether the process for hydrolyzing lignocellulosic biomass was inventive, given that the claims were challenged as lacking inventiveness and technical advancement over cited prior arts.
Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.
Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
Michigan State University v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
Michigan State University appealed the decision of the Patent Office to abandon its divisional patent application (No. 1699/DEL/1996). The Patent Office had maintained objections that the claimed expression cassette did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) and was non-patentable. The IPAB found the abandonment order unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided.
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.