Pharma — India Patent Cases
730 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 25 · 730 total
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Metrochem Api Private Limited regarding patent infringement of Apixaban was amicably resolved through court-mediated conciliation. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that agreement.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc And Others v.Clevus Lifesciences and others
The plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of the patent holder for Indian Patent No. 232231, filed a suit alleging infringement by defendant No. 1 and others who were manufacturing and offering Canagliflozin tablets under brand names like Adkana. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sought permanent injunctions against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, alleging infringement of Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across multiple connected suits. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting concerns about potential patent vulnerability due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling the products.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies seeking permanent injunctions for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Furthermore, the court expressed concern regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at 'evergreening.' Consequently, all applications for injunction were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, seeking permanent injunctions against infringing Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma seeking permanent injunction against various Indian pharmaceutical companies for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The court examined the applications for interim injunction and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the judge expressed concerns regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing the defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against Indian pharmaceutical companies for allegedly infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts by the plaintiffs towards 'evergreening.' Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against generic drug manufacturers, including Vee Excel Drugs, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of all interim injunction applications.
Yang, Liping v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Yang, Liping appealed an order dated November 18, 2013, which refused his Indian Patent Application (No. 2769/DELNEP/2004). The refusal was based on the patent not meeting Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. The court issued directions for service and filing of replies to proceed with the appeal.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 4380/DELNP/2013) concerning pharmaceutical products for treating ischemia. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on prior art D-5/D-6 and Section 3(d), was flawed because these documents were not cited during the initial hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a global pharmaceutical company, filed suit against Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants intended to launch a generic version, 'Ferocose FCM', which would infringe upon their patent (No. 221536). After considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of his process patent related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The dispute centered on whether the Defendants' product was made using the patented process, and how to balance the need for evidence with the protection of Defendants' trade secrets.
Rusan Pharma Ltd v.Aumgen Pharma Llp & Ors
The case involved a settlement agreement between RUSAN PHARMA LTD and AUMGEN PHARMA LLP regarding patent infringement. The defendants agreed not to engage in activities infringing the plaintiff's patent.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed the refusal of its patent application, titled 'Composition for use in the Prophylaxis of Allergic Disease,' which had been rejected by the Patent Office on grounds including being a method of treatment and lack of inventive step. The High Court examined arguments regarding claim scope, permissible amendments under Section 59, and the demonstration of synergy. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, finding that the subject matter satisfied the criteria for inventive step and directing the application to proceed for grant.
Pentraxin Therapeutics Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Pentraxin Therapeutics Limited challenging matters before the Controller General of Patents. The High Court at Calcutta received this matter via transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued procedural directions to the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report, setting the stage for further litigation.
Maruishi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents and Designs (Hearing Officer) and Anr
The case was received by the Calcutta High Court upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for March 2023.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
This case involves Sanofi - Aventis challenging decisions related to its patent application (OA/11/2019/Pt/Kol). The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the implementation of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The Calcutta High Court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before proceeding with the hearing.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court disposed of several interlocutory applications (I.A.) in the patent dispute between Novartis Ag and Natco Pharma Limited. The defendant withdrew its counter claim seeking invalidity of the suit patent, and the court allowed the defendant to file additional documents after imposing conditions.
Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the case in March 2023.
Novartis Ag v.Synokem Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis filed a suit alleging that Synokem infringed Indian Patent IN 229051, which covered a pharmaceutical composition of Valsartan and Sacubitril. The court noted that the patent had expired on January 16, 2023, rendering the dispute infructuous.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis Ag appealed against an order that set aside a patent grant (IN'414518) on the ground of procedural lapses. Novartis argued that the Single Judge misinterpreted Rule 55, which pertains only to pre-grant opposition procedures, not application examination under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found issues regarding the merging of proceedings and directed notice to be issued.
Grunenthal Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
This case involves Grunenthal Gmbh appealing before the Calcutta High Court following the transfer of its matter from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) due to the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report. Consequently, the case was scheduled for further hearing on March 6, 2023.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
This case involves Array Biopharma Inc challenging a patent matter before the Calcutta High Court. The proceedings were transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Wyeth Holdings Corporation v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding further. This procedural step sets the stage for the continuation of the patent dispute.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patent Design and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealing against a decision that was previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Pharma Mar S A v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
This opposition matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding further. This procedural order sets the stage for the continuation of the patent dispute.
Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
This case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings & Ors. v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The petitioner (Bristol Myers Squibb) filed an application seeking correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previous order concerning its US patent infringement suit against Apotex Inc. Separately, the court allowed the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals) to file its written statement after condoning the delay.
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.