Pharma — India Patent Cases
967 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 33 · 967 total
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries seeking permission to cancel the trademarks 'ZEST' and 'FERIZEST' registered by Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court dismissed the request concerning 'ZEST', citing principles of acquiescence, noting that the plaintiff had previously relied on similar marks containing 'ZEST'. However, the court issued notice for the cancellation petition regarding 'FERIZEST', allowing the litigation to proceed on that mark.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.J.B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed suits seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the drug FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions launched by the defendants under names 'JBCARB' and 'CipFCM'.
Vifor (International) Ltd & Anr. v.Cipla Limited
Vifor filed suits seeking permanent injunction against Cipla and J.B. Chemicals for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex (FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE). The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions of their patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding the patent's nature and previous injunction orders before deciding on the continuation of status quo.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mahendra Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd against Mahendra Singh and Anr regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiff, owner of the 'BIZFER' marks for pharmaceutical products, successfully argued that the Defendants' use of the similar mark 'VIZFER' constituted deceptive similarity. Given the potential negative ramifications for public health and safety due to the alleged unauthorized use in the pharma sector, the court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or marketing the impugned mark until further hearing.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The dispute was settled with the acknowledgment of the plaintiff's rights to use the patent related to Sitagliptin. The defendant confirmed they did not engage in any activities constituting infringement during the patent's validity.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 9677/DELNP/2011), which had been rejected under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to reconsider only the objection raised under Section 3(e).
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Aurobindo Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 216665 against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and the Controller of Patents. The court noted that the patent's term had expired on June 24, 2014, rendering the matter infructuous.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Novartis AG
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 252762. The court noted that the term of this patent had already expired on February 3, 2014.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 224634, which was granted to Matrix Laboratories Limited. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 224634 had expired on the date of the judgment.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Arvind Kumar Trading And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trademark 'NIKIND'. The court found that 'NIKIND' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established family of marks, including 'NIMEKIND', and that its registration should be cancelled under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. Furthermore, the judgment noted a lack of bonafide use and continuous non-use of the impugned mark for five years, leading to its removal under Section 47.
Matrix Labs. Limited v.Astellas Pharma Europe Bv
Matrix Labs. Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 234753. However, the court noted that the term of the subject patent had already expired on June 25, 2017.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application. The appellant argued that certain grounds for rejection were not addressed during the hearing notice and pointed out inconsistencies within the rejection order.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd v.Shahid Ahmad Mir
In a significant resolution for the pharmaceutical sector, Zydus Healthcare Ltd successfully concluded its dispute with Shahid Ahmad Mir through a comprehensive settlement decree. The parties agreed that Defendant would cease all use of marks or packaging deceptively similar to 'PROTIMED.' Crucially, the defendant formally transferred all rights and goodwill associated with the registered trademark 'PROTIMED' (No. 2159273) to Zydus for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000, effectively resolving the infringement claim.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its Indian Patent Application No. 1435/DELNP/2012. The application, which relates to a co-crystal formulation of Tramadol and Celecoxib, was rejected for lacking novelty and inventive step under Section 3(d) and (e).
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Indoco Remedies Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Indoco Remedies Limited regarding the validity and infringement of patent IN 247381 for Apixaban was amicably resolved through mediation. The defendant acknowledged the patent's validity until its expiry date (September 17, 2022) and confirmed discontinuing all related activities.
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.
Leeford Healthcare Limited v.Vobb Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Leeford Healthcare Limited against Vobb Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, specifically concerning the medicinal cream brand 'DERMIFORD.' Given that the goods are pharmaceutical and the defendants had recently entered the market, the court held that Leeford would suffer grave injury without immediate protection. This order temporarily halts the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEO DERMIFORD' until further orders.
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 & 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 & 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.
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 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.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 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.
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.
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.