Pharma — India Patent Cases
730 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 25 · 730 total
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis, the patent holder of IN 276026 covering novel pyrimidine compounds including Ceritinib, alleged that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing the patent by manufacturing and selling Ceritinib under its brand NOXALK. The court found that Natco had infringed the valid suit patent.
Zephyr Biomedicals v.Lalit Mahajan And Anr
Zephyr Biomedicals filed a post-grant opposition against Patent No. 224469. The court addressed procedural issues regarding the patentee's non-response and the subsequent service of notice after the abolition of the IPAB, allowing the patentee to file a reply.
Perkinelmer Health Sciences Inc And Ors v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged an order refusing a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, based on Section 3(f). The Appellant argued that the objection was raised for the first time at the hearing stage without prior notice, violating natural justice. The Court agreed, finding that the Respondent violated procedural fairness by not communicating all objections in advance.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs And Anr.
This 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 department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Design regarding its patent application for a composition comprising DGLA. The initial objection was related to Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which Nestle addressed by amending the claims. However, the subsequent amendment was rejected under Section 59 on grounds of expanding the original claim scope.
Smt. Manju Pathak v.M/S Shree Agro Foods
The plaintiff, a scientist, holds Patent No. 23606 for a process of developing Blood Sugar Regulating Products from germinated soybean seeds. She sued M/S Shree Agro Foods alleging that their product, NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR, infringed her patent. The court found the defendant liable and granted permanent injunction but declined damages due to lack of evidence.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The commercial suit filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp against Yms Laboratories Private Limited for Patent Infringement concerning Sitagliptin was settled mutually. The court decreed the suit in terms of this settlement agreement, which included the Defendant acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to cease all infringing activities.
Novartis Ag v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
Novartis initiated a suit against Zydus Healthcare Limited alleging imminent threat to its commercial interests concerning the patented combination drug Sacubitril and Valsartan. The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that the cause of action was illusory or based on misstatements. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the court must decide such applications solely based on the allegations made in the plaint, without considering the defenses raised by the respondents.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistance Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act. The court released the matter from part heard due to heavy board load.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The dispute involves a claim of infringement regarding a process patent for manufacturing Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The Plaintiffs sought to implead the Drug Controller General of India, arguing the Defendant failed to prove their process was different from the patented process. The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff was exceeding the scope and had not demonstrated product identity.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its pharmaceutical composition does not infringe Patent IN 387567 held by Ferring B.V. The defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the non-compliance with pre-institution requirements under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and directed the issuance of summons.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc filed an appeal challenging the order dated July 22, 2019, by The Controller of Patents. This order rejected the application for grant of a patent under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file submissions and pleadings.
Techfields Pharma Co Ltd Yu Chongxi v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
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 department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Limited
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed a suit alleging that Lupin Limited infringed its proprietary technology, NONS (a Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray), by developing and marketing a competing product called NOXGUARD, in breach of a Confidentiality Agreement. The appeal challenged the dismissal of SaNOtize's interim application seeking an injunction against NOXGUARD.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v.The Controller Of Patents And Anr
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application no. 4805/DELNP/2007 by the Controller of Patents and Anr. The application was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)) and insufficient disclosure (Section 10) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic APIXABAN infringing Indian Patent No. IN'247381. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' continued activities, such as participating in tenders and authorizing distributors post-injunction, constituted willful disobedience or contempt of court.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, patent holders of Indian Patent No. 312847 covering a combination therapy for diabetes (Metformin + Canagliflozin), filed suit against the defendant for infringement. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiffs and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing the infringing product.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The court examined three proceedings: two revocation petitions and one appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. In C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021, the court considered a petition to revoke Patent No. IN 268846. However, in other cases, the court ruled that jurisdiction was lacking because the appropriate office or another High Court already held the matter, preventing parties from pursuing parallel proceedings.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Zee Laboratories Limited and others for manufacturing and selling generic Apixaban products ('Apixaz' and 'Apiquis') that infringed Patent No. IN 247381. The court noted that the patent had expired on September 17, 2022. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, but directions were issued regarding the removal of listings from e-commerce platforms.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited concerning an impugned product. The Defendants stated they would not launch the product until the expiry of the suit patent. Based on this statement, the court decreed the suit in favour of Vifor.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the defendants' alleged activities including import/export and online listings of the product, leading to an amicable resolution.
Scipharm Sarl v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Scipharm Sarl appealed a decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of a patent application titled 'Novel Composition for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis'. The case was transferred from the IPAB to the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Both petitions sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970. The court condoned delays in filing written statements and disposed of related interlocutory applications. The matter was listed for further hearing due to the patent's impending expiry.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The court consolidated a rectification petition and a suit related to the same patent. An additional issue was framed regarding whether Indian Patent IN 247381 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 3679/DELNP/2015) for 'Preparation of Live Vaccines' due to lack of novelty and inventive step. The court first addressed applications regarding exemption from affidavits, filing additional documents, and condonation of delay.
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order dated October 29, 2021. The original rejection was based on non-patentability under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, and lack of clarity.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Arrow Coated Products Ltd. (Acpl)
Shilpa Medicare Limited appealed an order that returned its plaint filed in Raichur. The suit sought a declaration that their manufacturing process was not covered by Patent IN 200301, which Arrow Coated Products Ltd. held. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's decision regarding territorial jurisdiction.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Mr X Trading As Messrs Amar Medical Store & Ors.
Boehringer Ingelheim International sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a suit concerning its pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff asserted rights over its trademarks and distinctive trade dress, which it claimed constituted original artistic works under the Copyright Act. While the court allowed the application for interim relief, it mandated that notice be issued to the Defendants before execution of the order, setting the stage for further litigation regarding brand protection.
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.