Pharma — India Patent Cases
971 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 33 · 971 total
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Mr. Muheen Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Abbott Products Operations Ag to cancel the trademark registration 'DUFAKWIK' (No. 4459400) in Class 05. The cancellation was achieved through a mutual agreement, as both parties agreed that the mark should be removed from the Register without any claim for damages. This order provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved efficiently through negotiated settlements before the court.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Microcosm Pharma & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
Cipla Limited v.Bioxen Health Care & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Cipla Limited against Bioxen Health Care & Anr. regarding the use of deceptively similar trademarks for respiratory medicinal products. The court found that Cipla had established a prima facie case based on its registered marks ('BUDECORT' and 'RESPULES') and extensive market presence. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling goods under names like 'BUDECOT RESPULES,' while also being required to disclose their sales figures and current stock.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'OMEZEE' and 'OMEZEE-DM' for pharmaceutical products similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'OMEZ'. This immediate relief prevents the defendant from continuing manufacturing or marketing the infringing products until the full trial.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs alleged infringement of their statutory rights over Indian Patent No. 224186. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The case involves allegations of patent infringement regarding product patent IN 268632 and process patent IN 464646.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product NIVOLUMAB, marketed as OPDYTA in India. The defendant is attempting to process a biosimilar version of the plaintiff's drug.
Pharma Mar, S.A. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharma Mar, S.A. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Patent Application No. 202117032003 for "Anti-Cancer Compounds" by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court accepted notice and listed the matter for further hearing.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.Gurinder Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Helsinn Healthcare filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare Limited for infringing their patent (No. 426553) related to a combination treatment for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. The court, after considering the promotional material of 'NETUPIN', found that the defendant's product was an integrated combination of the patented compounds, thus making a prima facie case for infringement.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Sciences Ireland appealed the Deputy Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application for 'LONG TERM TREATMENT OF HIV-INFECTION WITH TMC278'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step. The Court noted an inconsistency between the formulation claim and method claims in the application, allowing the Appellant to file a fresh, amended application.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Indian Patent No. 235625, which was held to be prima facie invalid by co-ordinate benches of the court.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The court addressed arguments concerning the maintainability of a writ petition related to the deletion of an amendment in five patent claims. The court noted similar pending decisions on this issue and allowed the interlocutory application (I.A.) to proceed, considering the counter claim filed by the defendant.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This order addresses two concurrent proceedings concerning Patent IN 243301, which had expired on August 18, 2023. The erstwhile patentee argued the petitions were infructuous due to expiry. Petitioners contended that validity must still be decided as they faced ongoing infringement actions where invalidity was raised as a defense.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
The defendant filed an application seeking discovery of facts and particulars of the plaintiff's product to obtain a declaration of non-infringement under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the dispute regarding whether merely furnishing 'full particulars in writing' is sufficient or if the actual product must be shared.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Nexkem Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Nexkem Biotech for infringing its patent related to Empagliflozin. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit by arguing that pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act was not exhausted, as there was no urgency. The court dismissed this objection, finding that the suit did contemplate urgent interim relief and noting the defendants' admission of infringement.
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Apex Laboratories P.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd against Apex Laboratories P.Ltd. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 343270) in Class 5, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal confirms that the parties had reached a compromise in an earlier case (C.S.No.614 of 1998), and the terms of that settlement remain binding.
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.