Pharma — India Patent Cases
971 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 33 · 971 total
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v.Ldd Bioscience Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited against Ldd Bioscience Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'TUMOTIN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'TUMORIN,' leading to a prima facie case for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. While the injunction restricts future use, the parties were also directed to mediation to amicably resolve the dispute.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Passiflora Pharmaceuticals
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Passiflora Pharmaceuticals, alleging trademark infringement of its registered mark 'FLORA' in the pharmaceutical sector. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for filing replies to the injunction application (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC). The proceedings are moving forward with standard civil procedure steps, indicating an active dispute over brand reputation and market goodwill.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.
Pfizer Inc. v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Limited
The court confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier, restricting defendants from dealing in infringing products related to Patents No. 243571 and 250050, as other patents had expired. The court also directed service of notice for discovery regarding the origin and import of impugned products and allowed amendments to the plaint.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Medisave Formulations India Llp
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis against Medisave Formulations. Recognizing the urgent nature of the case, the court exempted the plaintiffs from standard procedural requirements like advance service and pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search at the defendant's premises, seize infringing products bearing the mark 'ZYMADA', and inspect relevant financial documents, finding prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the marks and packaging.
Eli Lilly And Company Private Limited v.Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly And Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 297760 (covering Abemaciclib) by the Impugned Drug 'Abeclib', manufactured by Defendant No. 1. The court prima facie found that 'Abeclib' infringes the patent and granted an interim injunction.
Wyeth Llc v.The Controllers Of Patents
Wyeth LLC appealed an impugned order regarding its patent application. The core dispute revolves around amendments made by the appellant from a PCT application (claiming a 'regimen') to subsequent national phase applications (claiming a 'combination' and 'pharmaceutical pack'). Wyeth argues these amendments were within the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Pfizer Inc. v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Pfizer Inc. claims that Beacon Pharmaceuticals has infringed on their patents. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the subsisting patents.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement regarding Sitagliptin (Patent No. 209816). An ex-parte ad interim injunction was previously granted restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing products. The court noted that the patent has since lapsed, making the injunction infructuous, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek relief of costs and damages.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents
Micro Labs Limited filed this Commercial Suit seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 and an injunction against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH Co. KG. The court noted that the same parties were involved in related proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the application to withdraw the suit was allowed.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.
Erytech Pharma v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Erytech Pharma filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the Assistant Controller's decision regarding Indian Patent Application No. 661/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Mohd. Nazim And Anr.
The Delhi High Court registered the commercial suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Mohd. Nazim And Anr., concerning alleged trademark infringement of 'AUGMENTIN' by the use of 'ZENMENTIN' for similar pharmaceutical products. The court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and granting permission to submit sealed documents related to sales figures. Crucially, the court directed that notice be issued to the defendants regarding the injunction application (I.A. 5188/2024), setting the stage for a full trial on the infringement claim.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
Manking Pharma Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manking Pharma Limited seeking the removal of the trademark 'DOLOBENE' from the register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the original petition for default.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Zenon Healthcare Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Zenon Healthcare Limited and Krishnam Bio-Tech alleging trademark and copyright infringement related to its product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINOZVIT, as well as relief for passing off and unauthorized reproduction of artistic works. Both parties ultimately resolved their dispute amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise.
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a petition challenging a notice issued regarding a pre-grant opposition filed by respondent no. 3 against its Indian Patent Application. Vertex claims that the opposition could not have been filed after the Controller had already decided to proceed with the grant of the patent.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Orchid Healthcare (A Division Of)
The Madras High Court allowed Alkem Laboratories Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's decision to register 'TAXTAM'. The court found that despite the registry listing several differences (such as product type or price), the marks 'TAXIM' and 'TAXTAM' were phonetically and visually deceptively similar. Citing established legal precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the rectification of the Trademark Register to protect Alkem's prior rights.
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.