Pharma — India Patent Cases
742 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 25 · 742 total
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
AstraZeneca AB and another plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning 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 defendant agreed to withdraw its counter-claim of invalidity and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour. The court disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement and granted refund of court fees to the plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca AB sued USV Private Limited for 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. Under the settlement, USV agreed to withdraw its invalidity counterclaim and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 157/2020. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, making the Settlement Agreement part of the decree.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG sued Torrent Pharmaceuticals for infringement of Indian Patent No. 275655 covering the anti-cancer drug Dabrafenib. Torrent accepted summons and voluntarily undertook not to manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any Dabrafenib-containing API or formulation during the patent's validity. The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking as part of the decree, effectively granting Novartis the relief of a permanent injunction without contest, while preserving Torrent's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act to use the compound for research purposes.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Incyte Holdings sued Macleods Pharmaceuticals for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering the novel compound Ruxolitinib, used in treating myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. Macleods had listed Ruxolitinib products as 'Under Development' in its US CTD Product List and was offering the API for sale on Pharmacompass. The defendant gave an undertaking not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity (expiring 12.12.2026), and the suit was disposed of with the undertaking binding the defendant while preserving its Section 107A research rights.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed against the refusal of its patent application No. 450/DELNP/2015 directed to a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab/erlotinib), and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor. The Controller had refused the application citing 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 deficient on multiple grounds, including failure to properly assess synergistic technical advancement, mechanical application of Section 3(d) without analyzing enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and incorrect interpretation of Section 3(i) as barring the claimed product combination. The court remanded the matter for de novo reconsideration with directions to decide within six months.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Opella Healthcare Group, part of the Sanofi Group and registered proprietor of the well-known pharmaceutical trademark PHENSEDYL (used in India since 1995), sued Pureca Laboratories for adopting the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a copycat trade dress for identical cough syrup products. The Defendant's trademark registration (No. 3791026) and copyright registration (No. A-130319/2019) had already been cancelled by the Court in prior rectification proceedings. With the Defendant failing to appear and being set ex parte, the Court granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that the Defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims and that the Plaintiff had established both trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off.
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
The Delhi High Court allowed Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd to withdraw its petition for revocation of AstraZeneca AB's patent IN235625. The petition was withdrawn due to a settlement between the parties. The court disposed of the petition and pending applications. The case highlights the importance of settlement in resolving intellectual property disputes. The patent in question was related to a pharmaceutical invention.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories concerning their patented composition involving semaglutide. The court heard arguments, noted affidavits from both sides, and allowed procedural applications while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings.
Novartis Ag v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited
This order addresses several interlocutory applications filed by Novartis Ag against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed additional documents, while also considering arguments regarding the scope of the defendants' license under the Patents Act.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201817048074) by the Controller General, which was based on non-patentability under Section 3(d). The appeal challenged the decision to reject the application despite submissions regarding improved therapeutic efficacy and stability data.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
Sanofi - Aventis appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was perverse because it failed to adequately address arguments concerning lack of inventive steps and should have been based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Mati Therapeutics Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mati Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs. The court order addressed arguments regarding the possibility of amending patent claims to comply with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether such amendments could be reviewed at a de novo stage.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Fertin Pharma A/S v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fertin Pharma A/S appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (no. 202017042442). The High Court found that the rejection order was cryptic, lacked clarity of objection, and failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the claims based on prior art documents D1-D3.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Manu Chaudhary appealed the refusal of his patent application (IN 201711047431) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was primarily based on the lack of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval. The High Court found that since the appellant had applied for NBA approval, the Controller should have deferred the final order instead of refusing the patent application.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The suit concerned alleged infringement of Patent No. 229051 by the Defendant regarding Valsartan and Sacubitril products. Since the subject patent IN'051 expired, the parties reached an amicable settlement which was recorded by the court.
Topotarget Uk Limited v.The Controller General Of Patent And Designs, Mumbai and Ors.
Topotarget UK Limited appealed a rejection order against its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition (PXD101 with an in situ salt former). The rejection was based on insufficiency of disclosure, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court found that the Controller misconstrued the invention as a salt per se, failing to consider the multi-component nature of the composition.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
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.