Industry Sector

Biotech — India Patent Cases

99 decisions indexed

Page 4 of 4 · 99 total

patent defendant favorable · Apr 8, 2020

Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 194558148

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.

patent pending · Feb 24, 2020

Roche Products (India) Private Limited v.Cadila Healthcare Limited

Delhi High Court · 144798992

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.

patent dismissed · Aug 14, 2018

S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Madras High Court · 78575454

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against TCS for infringing his copyright and patent related to the e-Passport (Smartcard) invention, known as 'FLYGUARD' or 'TCS e-Passport Solution'. Despite multiple hearings and court directions, the plaintiff failed to appear or file necessary affidavits, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

patent dismissed · Aug 14, 2018

S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Madras High Court · 116221542

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'.

patent plaintiff favorable · May 2, 2017

Versalis Spa v.The Assistant Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 89313399

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.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2016

Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 163306200

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.

patent dismissed · Jun 6, 2016

Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 3944188

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.

patent mixed · Apr 25, 2016

Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others

Delhi High Court · 28050929

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.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 19, 2008

Michigan State University v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · 918903

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.

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 →