Pharma — India Patent Cases
967 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 33 · 967 total
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr.
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against Zydus Healthcare Limited and another defendant, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet incorporating the Settlement Agreement.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca AB & Anr., filed a suit (CS(COMM) 411/2020) before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625 against Alkem Laboratories Limited. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the Settlement Agreement to form part of the decree.
Frimline Pvt. Ltd. v.Alniche Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Frimline Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its patent No. IN'547960. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 13.04.2026, while Defendant No. 2 filed an affidavit acknowledging the patent's validity and undertaking not to use the product under the mark PALMOVA or any identical composition. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement and the undertaking, while preserving Defendant No. 2's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for the respondent in his personal capacity, seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026. The court found no merit in the counsel's contentions regarding the findings of suppression of documents in other cases, noting that the interim orders and subsequent judgments cited had already been duly considered. The court held that the counsel, appearing in his personal capacity, had no locus to seek review of the direction imposing costs on the respondent.
Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of interlocutory applications in a rectification petition filed by Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr against The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr. The Court allowed the exemption application and condoned a one-day delay in re-filing the rectification petition. Notice was issued to the Respondents in the main petition seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 under Class 05, returnable on 08.12.2026.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against MSN Laboratories Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, recorded the settlement, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and granted the plaintiffs a refund of the entire court fees.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and VOX DEI Labs for allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'UPRG9'. The Madras High Court, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was found prima facie infringing, granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the impugned mark.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 223/2026) against Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd seeking a permanent injunction to restrain alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 419280 (IN'280) relating to Asciminib. The Defendant filed an application seeking condonation of a 34-day delay in filing its written statement, which was allowed. The Defendant then voluntarily undertook not to commercially manufacture, sell, or deal in any product containing Asciminib or Asciminib Hydrochloride during the subsistence of IN'280, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Natco Pharma Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs in Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011. The private respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that challenging the dismissal of a pre-grant opposition is contrary to Sections 25(2) and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, which provide equally efficacious remedies. The court issued notice limited to the issue of maintainability and listed the matter for 16th September 2026.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
This is a patent infringement suit (COMS No.3 of 2022) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and another plaintiff allege that Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited infringed their patent rights under Indian Patent No. 243301. The court framed four issues for trial, including questions of infringement, entitlement to permanent injunction and damages, and the validity/revocability of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The matter was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing a date for recording evidence.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.
Glaxo Group Limited, the proprietor of the trademark ZENTEL, sued Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and another party for trademark infringement and passing off arising from the Defendant's use of the mark ZENTEQ GEL. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and recorded settlement terms before the Delhi High Court. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement, with the Plaintiff foregoing its claims for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and legal costs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 410/2020) filed by Astrazeneca AB & Anr against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, based on a joint application recording an amicable settlement between the parties. The suit concerned alleged infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement, which formed part of the decree, and directed refund of the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against USV Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a suit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing the patented compound Dabrafenib, allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 275655 (IN'655). The defendant, through its counsel, gave an undertaking to the court not to commercially manufacture or launch any product containing Dabrafenib during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The court accepted the undertaking, decreed the suit in terms of the undertaking, and directed the defendant to file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG-9' (Registration No. 2645507), restraining the respondents from using the allegedly infringing mark 'ORG-9'. The court found prima facie trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of goodwill, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in O.A.Nos.740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. Notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
This case involves a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court had previously allowed Cipla to file restoration and renewal applications, and the trademark was subsequently reflected as 'Registered' on the official website. A third-party applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, sought to be impleaded and to recall the earlier orders. The Delhi High Court dismissed all three applications filed by the applicant, holding that the renewal of a trademark is strictly between the Registry and the registered proprietor, and that the proper recourse for an aggrieved third party is a rectification application.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The plaintiffs, Incyte Holdings Corporation and others, filed a patent infringement suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning Indian Patent No. 269841 (IN'841), which protects the novel compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant intended to commercially launch Ruxolitinib-based products, which would infringe Claims 1, 17, and 21 of IN'841. The defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of based on this undertaking, while preserving the defendant's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research use.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the order dated 30.06.2023 refusing Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015 titled 'Pharmaceutical Combination Comprising a B Raf Inhibitor, an EGFR Inhibitor and Optionally a PI3K Alpha Inhibitor' on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning on inventive step, Section 3(d), Section 3(i), and Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) to be deficient and lacking in proper analysis. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Controller for de novo reconsideration, with directions to dispose of the application within six months and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, the registered proprietor of the trademark PHENSEDYL (used since 1954 and in India since 1995 for pharmaceutical products), against Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, which had adopted the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a similar trade dress. The Defendant's trademark and copyright registrations had already been cancelled by the Court on 12.11.2024. Since the Defendant failed to appear and had no real prospect of defending the claim, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 38(a) to (e) of the plaint.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
This case involves Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Petitioner) challenging the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' (Registration No. 2473300 in Class 5) registered in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration. The court directed that the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition be tagged with the connected Commercial IP Suit and listed for directions on July 15, 2026.
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Integrace Private Limited sued Mas Pharmachem for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark 'BON K2 FORTE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'BON-K2', both used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as an undefended suit. The Bombay High Court found the defendants had adopted the impugned mark in a dishonest and mala fide manner to ride upon the plaintiff's goodwill, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with injunctive relief and costs, though damages were denied for lack of evidence.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
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.